Sitting of 1 February 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Concessionary Television Licences
    Mr. Martin Salter: If the BBC funding review panel will consider the range of concessionary arrangements. [66758]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The terms of reference for the review panel currently considering the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 include consideration of the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available.
    Mr. Salter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing support, especially in my constituency, for our campaign to secure a fairer system of concessionary television licence fees for pensioners and others in need? Is she further aware that there is a powerful case for free television licences to be provided to the housebound—as is the case in Ireland, Austria and Germany—because for many people stuck at home the television is their only source of entertainment and contact with the outside world?
    Janet Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign in his constituency. The pensioners of Reading, West are very lucky to have a Member of Parliament who takes their concerns so seriously. I assure him that the Government accept that the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. The current review will include a detailed consideration of the arrangements and possible alternatives, but we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or other groups, because that could lead to substantial increases for all other licence fee payers.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: As BBC funding is under review, may I draw the Minister's attention to an important article in The Times today by Roger Boyes about the possible decision by the BBC next week to close down the German service? May I urge her to make her best representations to the BBC not to take that step,
    578
    given that the German service still has a following and an important role to play, especially in the former east Germany?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a matter for the Foreign Office, but we will see that his views are made known to those concerned.

    National Stadium
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: What progress has been made on the development of the new national stadium. [66759]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I am pleased to confirm that Wembley plc and the English National Stadium Development Company have exchanged contracts for the sale of Wembley stadium. That is good news. I hope that things can progress quickly, so that we can start building what will be one of the world's finest stadiums. A new Wembley is at the centre of our plans to host major international sporting events such as the world cup in 2006, the Olympics and the world athletics championships. The Government are determined to place Britain right at the heart of international sport, and a new national stadium will help us to do just that.
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks, especially about the rebuilding of Wembley stadium and its importance for 2006. Does he agree that today is a black day for football, because of the ridiculous and outrageous comments by the England team manager, which I hope will be heartily condemned on both sides of the House? Will my hon. Friend comment on the importance of regulation in football, because in the past few months we have had many instances that suggest that if we are not careful the bubble will burst? If so, we will not be able to bring the world cup here, because football will have had its time in this country. As a football supporter, I hope that I am wrong and I trust that my hon. Friend can reassure me on the issue of regulation.
    Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend demonstrates by the scale of his supplementary question the feeling that sport has become one damn thing after another. On the point about Mr. Glenn Hoddle, there have been times this week when I have wondered what dreadful things I must have done in a previous life to end up as the Sports Minister in this one. I can only conclude that I was probably Vlad the Impaler and I have certainly felt all my impaling instincts coming back to me when I have surveyed the sporting scene. The words of the Prime Minister on television this morning are clear. He said that if Glenn Hoddle did make the comments as reported, it would be very difficult for him to stay. That is a matter, of course, for the Football Association and meetings are taking place. I suspect that we will get an announcement tomorrow, if not today.
    Football is on a roll at the moment and many people feel that the good days will never end. However, football must bear in mind that it must build new supporters in generations to come, and taking money out of football as if there were no tomorrow is a foolish thing to do. The final report of the football task force will consider commercialisation and merchandising and, of course, the idea of a football regulator. My Department has set up a

    579
    new independent body, the quality, efficiency and standards team—or Quest—to consider the rules of governing bodies that receive public support, and we hope that that will be one of the new mechanisms that will modernise British sport and take it into the next century.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: First, the Minister will know that all hon. Members who have worked with disabled sportsmen and women over the years will understand and share the views that he has just expressed. However, to return to the matter of the national stadium: does he agree that there is one item in his "one damn thing after another" list that might help the campaigns—spported by hon. Members of all parties—to bring major international sporting events to this country and to stage them in the national stadium, when it is completed? That item is the current scandal in the International Olympic Committee. Is it not likely that our reputation for being one of the incorruptible nations in world sport will make it easier for British bids to be accepted by a new, cleaned-up IOC, and that, as a result, the national stadium will host major world sporting events in the future?
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and for the support that he gives to sport in this country, especially to disabled sports. He is right to say that it is important that we present a united front in making bids for international sporting events.
    This week, I shall attend the anti-doping conference in Lausanne, at which we shall discuss the question of cleaning up the IOC. I am sure that, when that clean-up is complete, cities in this country will be in a much stronger position to bid for future Olympic games.

    Music (Children)
    Mr. Clive Efford: What action he has taken to widen the opportunities for children to participate in making music. [66760]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last summer the creation of a new Youth Music Trust with £10 million of Arts Council lottery funding a year. From April, the trust will work to promote greater access to music making for young people. Together with the standards fund initiative announced last week by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education and Employment, the trust could increase by at least £180 million over the next three years the resources available for improving music-making opportunities for young people.
    Mr. Efford: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the emphasis that his Department places on community and school music and I draw attention to the excellent work in my constituency of the Greenwich Youth Band and Greenwich Music Makers, which provide opportunities for young people to participate in music. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the resources being made available will take due account of community arts funding to ensure that music tuition will be available to everyone, and that no one is excluded from such tuition for reasons of cost?
    Mr. Howarth: I readily underline that point, and I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the Greenwich
    580
    Youth Band. Also in my hon. Friend's constituency is Eltham college, which has a strong musical tradition. I congratulate that institution on its link with the new Masterclass Music Charitable Trust, and we greatly appreciate the contribution made by Classic FM through that new trust.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State should now regret saying that Musicworks personifies everything that new Labour is trying to achieve in music, given that that project has had to close with debts of more than £50,000? Was not the Secretary of State merely displaying his normal, cack-handed misjudgment when he said what he did?
    Mr. Howarth: It seems a shame that the hon. Gentleman should simply resort to abuse. We hope to be able to double the amount of funding for music in schools: surely that should be a matter for welcome? Does the hon. Gentleman have to crab and to dwell on the negative, especially when the negative is imaginary?
    Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the infusion by the Government of new moneys into music. Would it be his wish that the children involved should one day graduate to playing in our national and regional orchestras? If so, will he kindly consider the difficulties faced by the Liverpool Royal Philharmonic Orchestra which, through no fault of its own, has massive financial problems? It is underfunded and has received only a very small increase in funds. If he were able to do something about the orchestra's difficulties, schools' music in the region would benefit greatly.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is a steady and strong champion of the Liverpool Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, which is in difficulties. What is needed is a partnership between the Arts Council, North-West Arts, the relevant local authorities and other bodies. I believe that we shall be able to achieve that partnership.
    I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the very remarkable achievements of our professional musicians, and to our musicians in schools. I was extraordinarily impressed when I visited the Music for Youth 1998 schools prom, as many hon. Members would have been, by the quality of the music making. However, music has been under threat in our schools, which is why our policies are so important to ensuring the continuation of what is a great national tradition.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the alarming evidence produced last year by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, which showed that the imposition of charges for tuition had already had a devastating effect on the presentation of pupils for music examinations, will the Government monitor closely the effect of their proposals on the level of participation to ensure that that extremely unhealthy trend is reversed?
    Mr. Howarth: The findings of the Associated Board were both dismaying and important, and they form part of the background to the substantial increase in funding for schools music introduced by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and

    581
    for Education and Employment. The Performing Rights Society is making a further study—a map—of provision of musical education and tuition throughout the country. We shall continue to do as the right hon. Gentleman recommends by monitoring the situation closely.

    Tourism
    Mr. Robert Syms: When he is proposing to publish his tourism strategy. [66761]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We shall publish our new tourism strategy on Friday 26 February.
    Mr. Syms: I thank the Minister. Tourism is very important to my constituents, and there is an award-winning tourist information centre on the quay in Poole that does an excellent job.
    Must not a key point of any strategy be to measure the impact of other Departments of Government on tourism? Do not many small businesses—the backbone of the tourism industry in Dorset—face increased bureaucracy from both Europe and the Government?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need to approach tourism not only from one Department, but across the whole of government, and that is precisely why we worked in close consultation with a wide range of Departments in drawing up our strategy. The small firms measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement a few months ago are a clear example of that.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: May I say how much I look forward to the publication of the statement on 26 February? Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise the importance of hotels and hoteliers to any tourism strategy? Will he confirm that that sector has been fully consulted in advance of his statement?
    Mr. Smith: I can confirm that. We have consulted widely with some 200 people representing all parts of the industry, including hotels, catering and hospitality, to engage them in our development of the strategy. We have also been out to widespread public consultation, and the theme of the new document will be to work in partnership with all parts of the industry.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is it true that the strategy, which is long overdue, will be announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? If the Secretary of State has indeed been sidelined, yet again, by the Chancellor, will he take an early opportunity to brief the Chancellor on deep concern in the tourism industry about the combined impacts of the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the parental leave directive, the part-time workers directive and other burdens on their business?
    Mr. Smith: I shall launch the strategy—not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is wrong, as always.
    582
    As regards such matters as the national minimum wage, the hon. Gentleman should talk to people in the tourism industry. They understand that if we are to make a success of tourism, we must have a good-quality product for the visitor. That means giving the people who work in the industry decent remuneration, good conditions, good training and good career opportunities. That is what the minimum wage is all about, and the good players in the tourism industry know it.

    Regional Theatres
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: If he will make a statement on the funding of regional theatres. [66762]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Arts Council of England and regional arts boards will between them spend more than £50 million of Government grant in aid in support of drama, including regional theatre, during 1999-2000, representing 27 per cent. of the Arts Council's total grant.
    Mrs. Spelman: Does the Minister accept that relatively poor funding for regional arts companies, such as the Birmingham Royal Ballet, merely serves to aggravate the chronic financial position in which theatres find themselves?
    Mr. Howarth: We recognise the significant problems affecting regional theatre, which have been documented by the National Campaign for the Arts in its publication "Theatre in Crisis: the plight of regional theatre". They are the consequence of several years of standstill funding earlier this decade, and we are starting to reverse the position. Regional arts boards will have grant in aid and lottery funding together increased by 44 per cent. next year.
    Mr. Joe Ashton: Is the Minister aware that in the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on National Heritage, investigated the costing and funding of regional theatres and found that 40 per cent. of their income came from local authorities and Arts Council subsidies? We found that football got 50 per cent. of its income from sponsorship, selling shirts, television and commercial activities, compared with only 5 per cent. for regional theatre. There is a major gap. Should the Minister not tell the Arts Council that it must do more along those lines?
    Mr. Howarth: I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is asking for more money from the Arts Council or from sponsorship or both. It is certainly a complex funding picture. Contributions from grant in aid and the lottery are needed as well as those from local authorities, business sponsorship and the box office. The exact mix will vary from theatre to theatre, but of course we want more business sponsorship, not only for the arts in general but for theatre in particular.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister knows that many regional theatres face severe financial deficits and even possible closure. With the Arts Council in the process of dissolving itself on Government orders, who or what will be responsible for taking a national view of the important role of regional theatres?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take a national view, as will the Arts Council

    583
    and its drama panel. Our strategy is to delegate much more to the regions. We believe that that will lead to more appropriate responsiveness and accountability, and to a higher proportion of publicly derived money being available for distribution according to decisions taken in the regions.

    Rugby Union
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What representations he has received concerning the state of rugby union; and if he will make a statement on his responsibilities as they affect the sport. [66763]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I convey the House's congratulations to Ulster, who beat Colomiers in Dublin on Saturday to become the first Irish side to win the European cup. That united Ireland in a way that politicians can only dream about and was an object lesson to politicians about the enormous power of sport.
    I share the concern of the House and the wider public about the recent problems that have bedevilled the five nations championship, although I have received few representations about it myself. I am in regular close contact with bodies such as the Rugby Football Union to convey Government concerns and offer help where I can but, as my hon. Friend knows, sport is not directly controlled by the Government. I met the RFU on 26 January to discuss a possible bid for the 2007 world cup. We also discussed this year's world cup, the five nations championship and the opportunities to bring major sporting events to this country.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for that full reply which shows that as well as impaling sports administrators, he is scrumming down and getting on with the job. Is he aware that the International Rugby Board is already charging £40 for ticket entries to the world rugby cup? That will lead to half-empty stadiums. It proposes to charge £100 for the final. Will he consider that and the proposal to reorganise the rugby union leagues? There are calls for a super-elite league based on teams close to the M25. That would mean a southern comfort closed shop of rugby union excluding many northern teams such as the great teams of Yorkshire, especially Rotherham, who are in the frame for promotion. Any league system for rugby should involve three up, three down to preserve movement and ambition. Rugby is actively supported in all our communities.
    Mr. Banks: I have heard concerns about likely ticket pricing in the world cup. It is going to be an exciting world cup, but people will not be quite as interested in some matches as in others. We do not want a repeat of the problems in France during the soccer world cup. I will take these matters up. I have had some discussions with the RFU and I will take it up with the IRB because it would be shame to spoil a fantastic world cup.
    As to the other matter, I am in favour of two conferences of the British league, but I understand that discussions are continuing. The latest idea seems to involve an Anglo-Welsh league, with the first division comprising mainly the 10 top English clubs and Cardiff and Swansea. That is a matter for the governing bodies and authorities of rugby to determine, but I know that they will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and
    584
    to the views of the all-party rugby group. Rugby has gone through a rough patch recently, and it would be a pity to lose this good opportunity to restructure the sport in this country.

    Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: What progress has been made on the setting up of Quest. [66764]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Good progress is being made on the establishment of Quest. We have advertised for a director and intend to have the team operational at the start of the new financial year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an early priority of the new team should be the administration of sport in this country, with a view to offering some suggestions as to how it could be improved?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have established two priority areas of work for Quest in the first year. First, we propose a review of the targets and indicators used within funding agreements across the fields that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport sponsors; and, secondly, a review of administrative structures within national bodies, including a review of the governing bodies of sport.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Quest's establishment sits uncomfortably with his declared aim of devolving power? Does he understand the extent of concern about his constant and calculated undermining of the arm's-length principle—his idea of which is clearly on a par with that of Venus de Milo?
    Mr. Smith: That was a somewhat laboured analogy, if I may say so. The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the nature of Quest—as always, Opposition Members are wrong. This is a small team that will ensure that the bureaucracies in place to fund sport, the arts, tourism, film and broadcasting work effectively and efficiently and that we get good value for the taxpayers' money. I would have thought that any sensible person—let alone those on the Opposition Benches—would recognise the value of that.

    Museums and Galleries (North-West)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What plans he has for the allocation of additional funding which will be available to museums and galleries in (a) the north-west region and (b) Chorley over the next three years. [66766]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The six designated museums in the north-west can apply to the new £15 million designated museums challenge fund. As well as free entry for children and pensioners at the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, funds are available to hold their annual eight-pass season ticket

    585
    at £3. The museum of science and industry in Manchester has also been allocated funds to enable free access for children from April this year.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that there are many other museums and galleries throughout the north-west, particularly Astley Hall in my constituency, which is a very good gallery and museum? What help and support can it expect from the Minister?
    Mr. Howarth: Astley Hall in my hon. Friend's constituency, as a museum registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission, may apply to the £7 million heritage lottery fund's access fund and also to the new challenge fund established by my Department of £500,000 in each of the next two years for information technology and educational projects in museums.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why will the Minister not apologise to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for breaking his pre-election pledge? Did not Labour say during the general election campaign that all people—not just children and pensioners—would have free access to all galleries and museums by 2001? Why is that another broken promise?
    Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are delivering on our pledge to provide funds for free entry to national museums and galleries. That funding will be available to enable free entry for children from 1 April this year and for pensioners the year after. In the year following that, we have allocated sufficient funding to enable free entry for all to national museums and galleries if the trustees wish to take up that opportunity.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the north of England for their support for the imperial war museum for the north, which was given the go-ahead last week? The project will break new ground in accessibility, giving visitors and students access to previously unseen photographs and film footage and enabling them to see, for example, their great-grandfathers' great war record. However, does my hon. Friend the Minister share my concern that, so far, the heritage lottery fund has not contributed to that project; and is he confident that it gives sufficient priority to such prestigious projects in the regions?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend herself deserves an accolade in respect of that exciting project, which she has supported imaginatively and energetically. The design and the project are both wonderful and I know that the heritage lottery fund is considering an application for further support for the project.

    Tourism
    Dr. Ian Gibson: How he has helped regional tourist boards to develop and promote tourism in their areas. [66768]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Regional tourist boards receive Government funding through the English tourist board. As I announced in December, more resources will be used for the support of tourism in the regions. The regional tourist boards will continue to work with the British Tourist Authority on the promotion of their region overseas; and with their local authorities and commercial members on developing and promoting tourism in their area.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend remember the document "Breaking New Ground: a Strategy for Tourism and Hospitality", in which local councils were exhorted to put forward strategies on tourism and leisure activities? How does she envisage local councils doing that, given that some local councils, such as Norwich, have received poor settlements?
    Janet Anderson: I understand how committed my hon. Friend is to the future of tourism, which is extremely important to the economic development of his area. We are pleased that the East of England tourist board has managed a significant increase in its allocation for 1998–99. The strategy that we are to publish on 26 February will take into account the need for close liaison and collaboration with local authorities and regional tourist boards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that we are doing all we can to get more funding for tourism into the regions.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the importance to the capital city of tourism, as measured in economic and employment terms, will the Minister tell us what role the Greater London assembly will have in promoting tourism? If, as I suspect, the assembly is to have a small role, or none at all, will she have a word with her two ministerial colleagues who represent London constituencies? If the London tourist board is to look after tourism in London, what is the use of having a Greater London assembly?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong: it is our intention that the Greater London assembly and the mayor will have a real responsibility for tourism in London, which is important as the gateway to the rest of the country.

    Museums and Galleries (Educational Work)
    Ms Christine Russell: What plans he has to encourage museums and galleries to extend their educational work in the community. [66769]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government attach high priority to the education work of museums and galleries, as is shown in new allocations of funding both from my Department and from the Department for Education and Employment. I congratulate the Grosvenor museum in my hon. Friend's constituency on the excellent education work it carries out, using its collections, on Roman archaeology and local history.
    Ms Russell: Will my hon. Friend join me in further congratulating the Grosvenor museum on recently being awarded a substantial grant from the heritage lottery fund

    587
    to make the building and its facilities accessible to people with disabilities? The museum already runs a good programme of educational work in the community; will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be possible to use the challenge fund, which he mentioned earlier, for work on an oral history programme, which the museum wants to carry out? Such a programme will not only engage older people, but, as important, give a sense of community to younger people.
    Mr. Howarth: I am happy to reiterate, as my hon. Friend invites me to, my congratulations to the Grosvenor museum. The project that she mentioned should be eligible for funding under the programme. I emphasise her point about the importance of museums attending to their role in dealing with social exclusion. My hon. Friend mentioned disabled people, but there are many opportunities to help people throughout their lives. Museums will be eligible to apply for funding under the new initiative on community access to lifelong learning, which will be funded by the new opportunities fund.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is good to hear so much encouragement for Labour Members and their projects, but what has the Minister to say to my constituents about places such as Haslemere museum? That is an excellent museum with splendid collections, but it has been informed that such has been the reduction in lottery money going to the heritage lottery fund that it is not now possible to support projects that might otherwise have received help. The Minister may have provided a modest increase from his Department's funds, but that is dwarfed by the raiding of lottery funds for museum projects to give money back to the Chancellor for his pet projects.
    Mr. Howarth: The heritage lottery fund will have more than the £1.8 billion promised by the right hon. Lady when she was Secretary of State and will receive no less than she and the previous Administration intended. I hope that she will return to her constituency and offer a little comfort and cheer to those in Haslemere.

    MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
    The Secretary of State was asked—

    Dome (Access)
    Mr. Damian Green: If he will make a statement on plans for promoting access to the dome. [66788]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The millennium experience at the dome aims to be largely car-free and to offer comprehensive and effective public transport access. Over 95 per cent. of the expected 12 million visitors will arrive by public transport. The New Millennium Experience Company will ensure, through its marketing strategy and information provided with dome tickets, that visitors are fully aware of the most convenient public access modes and routes.
    Mr. Green: For many of those visitors, the most convenient access mode will be the Jubilee line extension,
    588
    if that is built in time. If it is not, what contingency plans does the Minister have to convey visitors to the dome? Will we all have to be strong swimmers?
    Janet Anderson: Whatever is necessary to ensure that people can get to the dome will be done. The Government are confident that everything necessary is being done by London Transport and Bechtel to ensure that the line opens later this year in time for the millennium dome celebrations.
    Mr. John Austin: Does the Minister share my view that one of the lasting beneficial legacies of the dome will be the improvements in public transport to an area of south-east London which has probably lost more jobs than any other part of the United Kingdom? Does she share my concern that access by river will be almost exclusively from the west of the dome? Will she meet her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to consider the development of ferry services to the east of the dome, to Erith, Thamesmead and beyond?
    Janet Anderson: As my hon. Friend will know, we expect 1 million people to travel by boat from central London to the dome, using new river services. I recognise his concern and, as he knows, I have agreed to meet him soon to discuss that.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Freeze the river.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is on to an interesting point, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the intriguing article in The Guardian today which suggests that the Thames will be frozen to enable royal access to the dome. Does that not take the idea of cool Britain a little too far?
    Janet Anderson: That was one of the hon. Gentleman's better jokes, but they are not terribly good and I hope that they will improve. That article is pure speculation and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans to freeze the Thames.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will the Minister do what she can to encourage people to access the dome by bicycle? For example, she could point out that most rail companies operating in and out of London will carry bicycles. Will she also ensure that the London cycle network along the banks of the Thames is ready in time and that there is adequate cycle parking at the dome for people who want to bike there?
    Janet Anderson: As my hon. Friend knows, we take that seriously and we want to enable as many people as possible to travel to the dome by bicycle. As he also knows, the new riverside cycle/walk link to historic Greenwich, and improvements to existing cycleways in the area, will help. We shall make sure that there are secure facilities at the dome where people can leave bikes and motorbikes.
    Mr. Norman Baker: May I return the Minister to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)? Does she accept that the head of

    589
    London Underground, no less, has suggested that the Jubilee line may not be completed on time? What does she think is the percentage chance that the line will be open on time? If it is not open on time, how will people get to the dome? There is a dependence on the Jubilee line, which cannot be met by other means. Will there not be a catastrophe if the line is not open on time?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman may not know that following that report in The Independent on Sunday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stated that Mr. Smith had been misrepresented by that newspaper. He went on to say that nothing in this life is absolutely guaranteed, but I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier: the Government are confident that everything necessary is being done by London Transport and Bechtel to ensure that the line opens later this year and in time for the millennium dome celebrations.

    Dome (Future)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the future use of the millennium dome after the millennium celebrations. [66789]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government are concerned to ensure that the nation enjoys a long-term and enduring legacy from the millennium celebrations as a whole, and that includes the dome. That was one of the conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in June 1997 when the Government gave the go-ahead for the project. We plan in the near future to make announcements about the invitation of expressions of interest in future use.
    Mr. Loughton: The Secretary of State will be aware that opinion polls still show that the majority of adults are highly sceptical about the dome and think that it is a waste of money. Such scepticism was compounded by his predecessor's reluctance to release full details and information about the dome, which led to a stream of rumours and unhelpful speculation. Will the Secretary of State undertake to make a break with the cloak-and-dagger approach of his predecessor, and give a full and open outline of his plans for the dome, once the millennium celebrations are behind us and the banners for the latest re-relaunch of new Labour have been put away?
    Mr. Smith: I will be, as I have always been, open and transparent about everything that is happening. As I said, invitations to bidders for future use of the dome will be announced shortly. Public support for the dome is increasing, particularly among children, who very much want to go and visit it. The level of support that the dome is enjoying far exceeds any level of support that the Tory party is currently enjoying.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives planned to dismantle the dome after the millennium celebrations, and that they have advanced no positive ideas for its future? In the eyes of some, such a lack of imagination and vision might warrant a shake-up on their Front Bench.
    590
    By contrast, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is the fullest public consultation about the future of what will be an extremely attractive site?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has the Tories bang to rights. Under the previous Government, the intention was to dismantle the entire dome after one year. We have made sure that the structural steelwork has a lifespan of at least 60 years. The roofing material is expected to last at least 25 years before major maintenance is necessary. We want the dome to stay. We want it to be put to the best possible use, to the benefit of London and the country as a whole.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I take that last remark from the Secretary of State as an assurance that the millennium dome will remain open after the millennium celebrations, so that those of us from the north of England and Scotland who wish to visit it will be able to do so, given that there will clearly be no access by public transport, and we will have to come by foot or bicycle to reach it?
    Mr. Smith: That is complete nonsense. The hon. Lady should have listened to the answers that have already been given. I am sure that she and her constituents will be extremely welcome to come to the dome by public transport during the year 2000.

    Dome (Contents)
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Who is deciding what art will be displayed at the millennium dome; and if he will make a statement. [66790]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company is responsible for all aspects of the content and operation of the millennium experience. The company is considering options for a sculpture park outside the dome. There are no plans to display works of art inside the dome; however, some of the country's best creative design and artistic talent is engaged in ensuring that the development of individual zones reflects the project's innovative nature.
    Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but when will decisions be made about the art to be in the dome? Will there be a public discussion about it? Will my hon. Friend lean on the national galleries to release some of their best work for the dome? Will the Government commission some art from the new generation of artists? Will there be a variety of art to reflect the millennium, but also some modern art to reflect the fact that the dome itself is an example of neurotic realism?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He referred specifically to the national gallery. I remind him that, thanks to action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, everyone now has free access to the national gallery. We are always willing to consider ideas, but there are no plans at present to display works of art inside the dome. There will be 14 zones of exceptionally high quality, which will breathe real life into the core theme, which is "time to make a difference".

    591
    All the zones will show the ingenuity, imagination and talent of young British designers, of which we are very proud.

    The President of the Council was asked—

    Car Parking Charges
    Mr. Norman Baker: What representations she has received regarding car parking charges for hon. Members. [66799]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): No formal representations have been made.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that it is rather odd that parking across the road at Abingdon green costs some £20 for 12 hours whereas it is free for Members of Parliament? Does he support proposals in the transport White Paper for the introduction of workplace charging? Does he agree that they should apply to the House of Commons, notwithstanding opposition from Labour Members? Does he further agree that hon. Members should not be allowed to claim the charges back under the office costs allowance?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Greater London Authority Bill was introduced by the Labour party. It gives the mayor of London or the boroughs the opportunity to charge at a future date—the year 2000? The House will look carefully at the response from the new mayor—the new Labour mayor—and we shall respond accordingly once that advice has been given.

    Recesses (Parliamentary Activity)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will assess the consequences of allowing written questions to be answered and early-day motions tabled and published during parliamentary adjournments; and if she will make a statement. [66800]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Government have not yet been persuaded that there is a case for separating those parliamentary activities from the times when the House normally sits, but would be prepared to give it further consideration.
    Mr. Barnes: May I try to persuade the Government to act as suggested in my question? We have a number of recesses, including a lengthy one in the summer, and the only means that Members of Parliament have to contact Departments during that period is by telephone, fax or letter. Occasionally, they manage to take a deputation to see a Minister. It is important that we have parliamentary questions answered and early-day motions published if we are to raise important issues on behalf of our constituents. Why is it that, during the 13 weeks of the summer recess,
    592
    we are no longer Members of Parliament, but Members without a Parliament? Do we not need some of the avenues that a Parliament should have?
    Hon. Members: Agree.
    Mr. Tipping: I shall agree with this: my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is not noted for his quietness during the summer recess. He campaigns vigorously, as do many other hon. Members. Avenues are available if hon. Members wish to pursue certain issues, but as I said in my opening remarks, if a strong case can be made, we are prepared to look again and consult others on a way forward.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is not one of the Minister's fears that other Ministers may not be available to answer such parliamentary questions? Is he aware that technology now exists to contact helicopters, Concorde and luxury villas in the Seychelles, so that Ministers can be available at all times to answer hon. Members' questions?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman well knows that each Department has Ministers working throughout the year, every day and every week. We intend to modernise this country; we shall modernise it throughout the long break and way through into the millennium.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If she will make a statement on the state of readiness of the national infrastructure for coping with the millennium bug. [66801]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): It was under this Government that the major utility providers and users were brought together for the first time at the national infrastructure forum, which is being led by Action 2000.
    The results of the first round of independent assessments for five key sectors—electricity, oil and gas fuel, telecoms, water and finance—were announced at their meeting on 21 January by the regulators responsible. The results were encouraging, and the regulators confirmed that each of the sectors appear to be well on the way to being fully prepared.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she join me in condemning certain sectors of the press and certain Opposition Members who are trying to pursue alarmist propaganda about what will happen at the end of this year? What can all Members of the House do to promote the good work that is being done, and the good start that has been made, to make sure that our infrastructure is ready to face the challenges of the millennium period?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, although it would not be correct to be complacent, a great deal of very good work is being done. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to make sure that

    593
    their constituents are aware of that, lest they fall into the trap of believing some of the more exaggerated stories that appear.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady aware, as I have been made aware by railway and air transport companies, that not one insurance company is prepared to cover travel on 1 January 2000? I believe that that is also the case with ferries. That is not a move to create hysteria, but simply a practical problem. For example, people wishing to travel back to their place of work on 1 January 2000 will not be able to do so, because there is simply no insurance policy in this country that will be issued to cover travel on that date.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The issue of what is happening—for example, in transport—is being examined carefully by the relevant authorities, and in particular by the international authorities in each of these sectors. I am sure that they will keep that matter under review.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am one of the sadder Members of this House—I have been to the Library to read the 500 pages on the millennium that are deposited there every quarter.
    May I reflect what has already been said? In America, the Government have put together a league table, grading Departments from A to E to show where they are on the millennium bug. Will she do that, not only for Departments, but for the utilities? In the first review, which was held last year, the transport sector in America did not achieve A, B, C, D or E; it got an F. Every chip in every traffic light is affected by the millennium bug, which shows how deep the problem runs. It would be great if a league table were put into the public domain, so we could check on how good things are.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. I am slightly shocked to hear that he does not think that every Member of the House has read the whole of that document; but his suggestion is interesting and the Government keep constantly under review the best way of getting across information about the matter.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: First, may I thank the right hon. Lady for not blaming everything on the previous incarnation? Obviously that would be an unfashionable thing to do at the moment. Can she confirm or deny reports broadcast yesterday that all leave for the armed forces is to be cancelled, as a precautionary measure, during the new year period? Is that true or false?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I am not aware at the moment of whether that is true or false, but I am well aware that, in many sectors, leave is being cancelled or people are being urgently advised that it would be preferable if they did not take leave because people need other people to work.

    European National Parliaments (Contact)
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What plans she has to improve contact between hon. Members and Members of European national parliaments. [66802]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): My right hon. Friend the President of the Council said that the scheme to allow Members to visit European Union institutions would be extended. I can announce today that, from the next financial year, Members will be able to claim reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses for one visit either to the main EU institutions or to the national Parliament of any EU member state. The scheme will be reviewed after a year to see whether it is possible to allow two visits in the second year.
    Mr. MacShane: In welcoming the Minister to his job, may I congratulate him on his appointment and on his excellent answer? The aim of this proposal is to extend our relationship as national parliamentarians with other national Parliaments of Europe. We should move away from the obsession with Brussels and Strasbourg and make connections with national Parliaments, national Governments and national political parties in Paris, Copenhagen, Madrid or wherever it is judged necessary.
    Will my hon. Friend keep this matter permanently under review? I am sure that it will be a success, because it will increase the ability of MPs of all parties to represent their constituents' interests in other cities across the European Union.
    Mr. Tipping: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I am sure that he will continue to pursue this matter, as he has done in recent years. He has a strong voice in Rotherham, which he is keen to extend across Europe. It is important for Members to visit institutions and to talk to colleagues abroad.
    Mr. Eric Forth: If one accepted the validity of the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), would the Minister seriously consider extending this facility to visits by British parliamentarians to the United States Congress, given that our relationship with the United States is closer, better, more natural, deeper and longer than it will ever be with the foreigners on the continent?
    Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have recently been critical of trips to the United States, so we shall not listen to his current suggestion.

    English Regions
    Mr. Ian Stewart: What progress has been made in ensuring that issues of concern in the English regions are being addressed in Parliament. [66803]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I announced on 14 January that a proposal would be put to the Modernisation Committee to revive and adapt the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. A memorandum setting out the proposal will shortly be sent to the Committee, which I hope will report on it in the near future.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. When will the Standing Committee meet and how many MPs will be involved? Does the right hon. Lady welcome the introduction of the regional development agencies as a first step towards regional government in the regions of England?
    Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the Modernisation Committee will recommend, and that the House will agree, a change in the Standing Orders so that the Committee can be convened later this Session. As to how many Members would serve on it, that is a detail which the Modernisation Committee will have to consider. I share my hon. Friend's view that the regional development agencies are admirable in their own right, and I am conscious of the fact that some people want them to develop.

    Private Members' Bills
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment she has made of the operation of the procedures for private Members' Bills. [66805]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Concern has been expressed about the systematic blocking of well supported measures by a few Members. If the procedures are found to be unsatisfactory this Session, then either the Modernisation or the Procedure Committee could examine the matter.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am interested to hear the Minister's reply. Whatever the merits or demerits of a particular private Member's Bill, the fact that few such Bills reach the statute book breeds disillusionment among the public about our procedures. Will he consider carefully the suggestion that fewer should be chosen in the ballot, but they should be given more time—without increasing the time available for private Members' Bills in the calendar year?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that fewer private Members' Bills gained assent in the last parliamentary Session. We want to consider what happens in the current Session before we make a judgment. The hon. Gentleman clearly understands the wider issue, which is to achieve a balance between the time required for debates and statements and the need to hear all the views in the House. I am not convinced that pledges can be given to make extra time available.

    Modernisation
    Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on Government proposals for further modernisation of the House of Commons. [66806]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We are in the early weeks of the experiment approved by the House on 16 December for earlier sittings on Thursdays. The Modernisation Committee is looking at the possibility of creating a second forum, or Main Committee. I will shortly invite it to study ways in which the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs might be revived and updated.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. She referred to the proposal for the establishment of a Main Committee. Could that perhaps provide an opportunity for our procedures to be made more transparent and slightly less like a bunfight? My constituents find watching the Chamber a depressing experience at times: they gain the impression that Members jeer and shout, and do not listen to each other. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the establishment of a Main Committee might help the Chamber to grow up?
    Mrs. Beckett: That would be a dangerous proposition. The Modernisation Committee, however, is currently taking evidence from a number of quarters on the proposal for a Main Committee, and believes that such a Committee might indeed lead to greater transparency—and, perhaps, to some variation in the way in which we debate some of the issues that come before us.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Lady realise that, having fought so hard to achieve universal suffrage and their place in the House of Commons, women will judge her harshly if, under the pretence of family-friendly policies, she uses them as an excuse to dumb down the House and reduce the number of hours in which Members of Parliament can argue their case?
    Mrs. Beckett: I can only say that, in listening to what was said about the proposed changes and the experiment that is being undertaken in the House, the right hon. Lady has clearly failed to take into account the fact that there has been no diminution of the hours in which the House sits and no dumbing down; nor would any be proposed by this Government.

Kosovo
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I should like to make a statement about recent developments in regard to Kosovo.
The situation on the ground remains tense. On Friday, more than 20 Kosovo Albanians were shot in Rugovo. On Saturday, a hand grenade was lobbed into a cafe in Pristina frequented by Serbs, injuring eight people, including one Albanian. Yesterday, two Serb policemen were injured when a grenade was fired into their van while they were returning from the funeral of a casualty of earlier conflict. More than 200 people have been killed since the Holbrooke agreement last October provided for a ceasefire.
At its meeting in London last Friday, the Contact Group called on both sides to end hostilities now. It insisted on full compliance by Belgrade with its undertakings of last October, and on real co-operation with both the verification mission and the International War Crimes Tribunal.
The main focus of the meeting was on the urgent need to put momentum into the political process. Since last October, Ambassadors Hill and Petritsch have developed the Contact Group's framework document for a political settlement, which reflects extensive consultation with both sides. The detailed document provides for an interim accord for three years. That period would provide an opportunity for the creation of democratic self-government in Kosovo, through free and fair elections supervised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The new institutions of Kosovo would enjoy a wide range of self-government, including control of Kosovo' s own police and internal security. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would retain competence only for foreign policy, external defence, monetary policy, the single market, customs and federal taxation. Both Serb and Albanian communities would be fully protected, with the right to elected institutions preserving their national cultures, language and education. The framework document also provides that, at the end of three years, the future status of Kosovo would be reviewed under international auspices.
Despite the extensive consultation and the detailed work that has gone into the framework document by representatives of the Contact Group, in three months there has not been one negotiating meeting on it between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians. On Friday, the Contact Group resolved on a programme of action to break that stalemate.
We agreed to summon both sides to negotiations on the basis of the framework document. We set a tight timetable that requires both sides to attend talks by this Saturday and to conclude negotiations within less than two further weeks. France has offered to provide a venue for the talks, which will take place under the joint chairmanship of me and Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister. Also on Friday, the United Nations Security Council welcomed the Contact Group's strategy and demanded that both parties should comply with it.
On Saturday, the North Atlantic Council gave its full support to the Contact Group's strategy and warned that
"NATO is ready to take whatever measures are necessary"
598
to avert the humanitarian catastrophe by compelling compliance with the demands of the international community. In the meantime, the North Atlantic Council delegated to its Secretary-General, Javier Solana, authority to order military action in the light of the responses of both parties.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Kosovo with President Chirac during his visit last Thursday. They agreed that both Britain and France would be willing to consider the deployment, with their allies, of ground troops in Kosovo to provide a period of stability and peace during which a political settlement could take root.
I was instructed by the Contact Group to convey our demands to both parties and, on Saturday, I visited Belgrade and Skopje. I was accompanied throughout by Bill Walker, chief of the verification mission. The visit increased my respect for its valuable work. It has provided instant and reliable information on atrocities, which invariably occur in places where it is absent, and has undoubtedly deterred further atrocities where it is present.
In Belgrade, I met jointly with President Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and President Milutinovic of the Republic of Serbia. I stressed to them that I came with the mandate of the united Contact Group, and backed by the authority of the North Atlantic Council. Our requirement on them to take part in negotiations under international chairmanship is the best opportunity that Belgrade will get to extricate itself from a conflict that it cannot win. President Milosevic undertook to study the Contact Group proposals and to reply within a few days.
In Skopje, I met Dr. Rugova, Mr. Demaqi and Mr. Qosja, who between them represent a broad spectrum of Kosovar opinion. I stressed in all my conversations with the Kosovo Albanians that the proposals of the Contact Group offered a democratic, self-governing Kosovo free from the bloodshed of recent months.
Dr. Rugova, who was elected overwhelmingly last year as leader of the Kosovo Albanians, welcomed the opportunity for talks and committed his party to participate fully in them. I also spoke by telephone to Mr. Surroi, an independent publisher and a leading political figure in Pristina, who gave his full support to the proposals and expressed his willingness to participate. Mr. Demaqi, who acts as political spokesman for the Kosovo Liberation Army, and Mr. Qosja, leader of the third largest Kosovo Albanian party, both undertook to consult their colleagues and to let me have their responses within days.
I cannot confirm that the talks that we seek will take place. Nor can I guarantee that, if they take place, they will succeed. Serious issues of difference remain between the two sides, which it will take hard negotiation to resolve, such as the nature of the review to take place in three years' time and the relationship between a self-governing Kosovo and Serbia, but I can confirm that the meeting of the Contact Group showed real unity and a common determination to provide for progress towards a political settlement of the conflict.
It is now for both parties to show the same commitment to finding a political solution. Neither of them can win the conflict by military means. Both of them would benefit from a political settlement. The offer of those talks, brokered by the Contact Group and backed by the

599
Security Council and NATO, provides the best opportunity that they will ever get to achieve a political settlement through dialogue. I urge both of them now to seize that opportunity and to give the people of Kosovo hope for their future in place of fear of the present bloodshed.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement.
It has been clear for some considerable time that a clear ultimatum is required to halt the violence in Kosovo and to bring the two sides to the negotiating table. As the Foreign Secretary said on Friday, the international community cannot simply allow the current stalemate to continue while the ceasefire crumbles and people continue to be killed. In truth, the ceasefire crumbled some time ago; the October agreement is in tatters; and, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, more than 200 people have been killed since that agreement was entered into.
In the light of those dire facts, the Opposition fully support the summonsing of both sides to talks, by 6 February, and the setting of a clear deadline for conclusion of the negotiations. We also support the decision by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to authorise the possible use of force, provided that it is based on clearly defined objectives.
NATO forces are reported to be on 48 hours' notice. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about British preparations for the possible use of force? Should military strikes be authorised, what plans exist for extraction of the OSCE verifiers—I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to them, and to what they are doing in Kosovo—before any such action?
The Foreign Secretary also mentioned the possible deployment of ground troops to enforce any settlement. Would all leading NATO nations take part in such a deployment? Is the United States, in particular, now showing greater willingness to deploy such troops?
The whole House will wish to condemn unreservedly the killings that continue to take place in Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary referred to the discovery, on Friday, of the bodies of 24 Kosovo Albanians in the village of Rugovo. Will he tell the House what progress has been made by the verifiers and others in investigating who was responsible for those deaths? Does he accept a role for international war crimes investigators in that work, as he did after the massacre of 49 Kosovo Albanians at Racak?
The head of the OSCE has reaffirmed his belief that he has "absolutely no doubt" that Serbs were behind the Racak outrage. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with President Milosevic on access for war crimes investigators to that area? What response did he receive? Will he comment on weekend reports that United States surveillance teams uncovered evidence of direct involvement by senior Serb politicians and military representatives, both in the massacre itself and in the attempted cover-up that followed? Will he comment also on claims by United Nations human rights monitors that Serbian authorities have launched a new campaign of arresting and torturing Albanian political activists?
Does the Foreign Secretary recall that it is now almost eight months since he issued what he called a last warning to the Yugoslav President? Threats have been made
600
repeatedly since, but they were not followed through. The response of the international community, led—as he constantly reminded us—by him, was described by the Prime Minister's press secretary as "dithering and disunited". Will the Foreign Secretary now give an assurance that those days are over and that, if the current ultimatum does not succeed, resolute action will be taken?
Mr. Cook: I shall respond to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concluding remarks before I sit down, but, meanwhile, I shall respond to his questions.
Britain will take full part in any action that is taken by NATO. For that reason, we have already made appropriate arrangements for our airplanes to be ready in Italy.
If military action were in contemplation, the verification mission would of course have to be withdrawn. While I was in Skopje, I had the opportunity of meeting some of those who are deployed to the extraction force, which would assist in that task if it were necessary. Of course, the requirement to remove that verification mission, which is doing valuable work in Kosovo, must also be a factor in our decision on whether to take military action.
There is discussion in the United States Administration on ground troops. No conclusion has been reached, but there is growing recognition among many NATO members that a political settlement would have a better chance of success if it were backed by ground troops.
I have presented President Milosevic with the full conclusions of the Contact Group, which include the demand that the International War Crimes Tribunal be given access to Racak to carry out an investigation. I am well aware of the reports of what happened at Racak. I made my position on that plain when I spoke in the House two weeks ago. It is clear that the prime responsibility appears to lie with the Serb security forces, who were in the vicinity.
On Friday, the Contact Group of the United States, Russia and the major European nations was united without reservation behind the strategy that I have outlined to the House. Since then, the strategy has been backed without reservation by the 15 members of the Security Council and the 16 members of NATO. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not give the same full support without indulging in party politics.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a period of eight months. I remind him that President Milosevic suspended the autonomy of Kosovo in 1990. Today's storm has been gathering in the eight years since then. For seven of those years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in power. Having done nothing throughout those long years to avert the crisis, it is a bit rich to complain that we have not solved the mess that we inherited from the Conservatives in eight months.
Mr. Donald Anderson: With the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), there must surely be admiration and congratulation from all parties for the leading role that my right hon. Friend has played in the flurry of international conferences and initiatives in recent days. Although there are clearly loopholes and problems, including the extent to which we can rely on the promises of President Milosevic and uncertainty about who can speak properly on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army,

601
surely we must all recognise that the initiative is the only serious way out of the crisis. Those who reject it will bring a heavy burden on those whom they purport to represent—a burden that will be borne through greater bloodshed and destruction of property.
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that the situation is very complex, and the best way to resolve those complications is for both sides to get around the table and thrash the issues out together. I am sad to endorse my hon. Friend's last remark, having had first-hand contact. I sometimes feel that the deaths on both sides are not necessarily the prime consideration of those involved with whom I discuss the matter. Undoubtedly the best prospect of peace and stability for the people of Kosovo lies in the process. I urge their leaders to take that step. The best way to halt casualties on the Serb side and to protect the rights of the Serb community in Kosovo also lies in the process.
Mr. David Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Does he accept that the proposed talks at Rambouillet will be widely welcomed, providing a renewed momentum to the political process, firm proposals for discussion and a clear political objective should force be required—the three prerequisites that the Liberal Democrats have long advocated? I welcome his personal contribution to an overdue process still fraught with military and political risks.
I should like three assurances. First, will every effort be maintained to ensure common purpose with our European partners, particularly France and Germany? Secondly, if Dr. Rugova and President Milosevic are prepared to come to the table, will it be made clear to Dr. Demaqi and the KLA that they have no veto to prevent effective talks from proceeding? Lastly, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the jurisdiction of the International War Crimes Tribunal and the eventual indictment of individuals in Kosovo guilty of crimes against humanity are not negotiable?
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the initiative. On his first point, we will work hard to maintain the common purpose with our European allies, and as the event is jointly chaired by me and by the Foreign Minister of France, that is essential to the success of the enterprise. Germany will be represented throughout at Rambouillet at a high official level, and it is important that the President of the EU remains engaged in the process.
Secondly, there can be no veto by any specific party on whether the talks take place. We would be willing to conduct talks in the event of Dr. Rugova, Mr. Surroi and Mr. Qosja attending Rambouillet. However, we are anxious to make sure that we receive an Albanian team that is as representative as possible, and therefore we very much hope that Mr. Demaqi and the KLA will give us a positive answer. It is in the KLA' s interests to be represented in the discussions.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman is of course correct to say that the demand for access for the International War Crimes Tribunal to Kosovo has been made by the UN Security Council and is in no way open to negotiation at Rambouillet.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The assumption that many people are making is that NATO action would be against Serbian military assets. However, if this is an argument—as has been said at the Dispatch Box before—between Greater Serbia and, to some extent, Greater Albania, are there not circumstances in which NATO military action might have to be taken against forces other than those of Serbia?
Mr. Cook: If that assumption exists, it has no validity in terms of the text approved by the North Atlantic Council on Saturday, which is even-handed and has authorised Javier Solana to take action, depending on the response of both parties—not just one party. At the same time, we must be realistic. Military action in Kosovo against the KLA is not a readily feasible military option because there is no concentration of targets, and they are mostly among civilian areas that we would not wish to target. However, I hope that those questions will not arise. Quite apart from any prospect of military action, it is plainly in the interests of both sides to come together and make a success of the talks. I hope that they will draw that conclusion themselves.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In the somewhat dire eventuality of Britain having to inject a military force on the ground, will the Foreign Secretary explain on whose side that force would be and its precise objectives? Would the force be interposed between two belligerents in what could prove to be an extremely long and costly engagement in an area ideally suited for guerrilla warfare? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that self-determination for Kosovo, sooner rather than later, may prove to be the most realistic political option?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised the prospect of self-determination for an independent Kosovo several times; therefore, I find it surprising that he should warn that those who argue for that in Kosovo would choose to shoot at troops who were there to police a political settlement. There can be no question of any external force being interposed, because there is no such thing as a front line in Kosovo in which it could be interposed. The objective of any such deployment would not be in support of either side, but would be in support of a political settlement. Such a deployment would be realistically likely only if both sides were committed to that political settlement.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary, is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who were in previous Parliaments remember only too well how the then Conservative Foreign Secretary, now Lord Hurd, treated with derision those of us who called for action to protect the lives of Muslims in Bosnia, and we are not likely to forget it? Does my right hon. Friend accept that all the evidence that has come to light in the past few days demonstrates that the mass murders have been orchestrated by Belgrade, and it would be naive to think otherwise? I hope that the plan that my right hon. Friend has announced today will succeed, but we should remember that, like Baghdad, unfortunately Belgrade understands only force.
Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend is right on that last point, there is a clear possibility of that force being applied if

603
Belgrade does not respond to the diplomatic invitation that we have made. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the atrocities and I also understand the point that he makes about the tight discipline and communications in the Serb security forces. I stress to the House that the important issue, and the strategic objective, must be to find a political settlement. As long as there is no political process regarding Kosovo, the ceasefire will continue to crumble. We will persuade both sides to look for a solution other than through conflict only if we can show that there is another way to achieve a much better solution.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many in this country welcome the move that he has made and wish to encourage the settlement along the lines that he has suggested? However, in the light of his rather cautious remarks about the other members of the European Union, will he indicate the extent of differences between the member states? He was careful not to mention the extent of unanimity between the member states.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we are doing. We discussed the issue at the European Union meeting of Foreign Ministers only a week ago today, and there was total unanimity in condemning the atrocities and stressing the importance of the political process. Four of the largest members of the European Union were present at the Contact Group on Friday—Britain, France, Germany and Italy—and all fully supported the conclusions that I have presented to the House. At present, I am not aware of any substantial disagreement in the European Union and I am sure that, should NATO decide that ground troops are an appropriate way to ensure that the political settlement can take root, many other members of the European Union will participate as members of NATO.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As one who, as long as 14 years ago, argued while in Yugoslavia that Kosovo should get full republic status, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Contact Group on coming up with a framework document that is a basis for negotiation. I agree with him that military activity will never solve the problem. Has he taken cognisance of the words of Colonel Edward Cowan, our former military attaché in Belgrade, on BBC Radio 5 on 22 January that military action would be a disaster? I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the possible consequences of re-igniting the conflict in Bosnia if Serbia is bombed.
Mr. Cook: There is no one in the Contact Group or in NATO who actively wants to initiate military action. Any such decision would be taken with great reluctance and only if Belgrade refused to respond to the fair offer that we have made. I hope that Belgrade will recognise that it is in its interests to give a positive response and to share the view expressed by my hon. Friend that the way forward is to negotiate on the remaining difficult areas. Equally, Belgrade should have no doubt about our resolve if it refuses to end the conflict and fails to take this opportunity to engage in a political process. We are clear
604
in our determination that that cannot happen without a response from NATO and we have set out clearly what that response might be.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the level of diplomatic unity that he has achieved on the objectives that he has laid out to the House this afternoon. However, he should bear it in mind, when he upbraids my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), that it was the Prime Minister's press secretary who described the results of the Foreign Secretary's previous efforts as dithering and disunited. Will he explain to the House what authority has been delegated to the Secretary-General of NATO to do what and with what military forces in the light of the response of both parties? How much authority over the control of its armed forces has the United Kingdom given away in response to the military events of the next few days?
Will the Foreign Secretary explain from where the troops who will be used in the long-term control and protection of the settlement will come? It is rumoured in the newspapers today that 8,000 British soldiers may be involved in the initial stages but, as the strategic defence review made clear, we have the capacity to deploy a formation only for one six-month spell.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, and I assure him that I come to the House with the full backing of the Contact Group of the North Atlantic Council, of the Security Council—and also of the press spokesman for the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had given away control of British forces. Of course we have done no such thing: what we have done is participate as full members of an alliance that has a procedure for joint decision making. Part of our procedure has always been that, towards the end of the political decision making, we hand over authority for action to the military membership.
In this case, we have handed over the authority for action to Javier Solana, the NATO Secretary-General, but we would, of course, expect consultation before any further step is taken. Indeed, the conclusions of the North Atlantic Council explicitly state that he will take into account the Contact Group's assessment of the responses. I can therefore tell the hon. Gentleman that I am totally confident that there will be further consultation with Britain before any action that involves our forces takes place.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend? In terms of political developments, should the Kosovo Albanians not be urged to play the long game? From their point of view, it makes good sense that there should be an autonomous administration long before there can be any talk of self-determination. However, does not military force or action have to be legitimised by international law and by the support of the United Nations Security Council? If there are not to be American troops on the ground there, what role will the American Administration play in what is, essentially, a European problem?
Mr. Cook: First, I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's point about the interim character of the Contact Group

605
proposals. The Kosovo Liberation Army does not give up any issue of principle in coming to negotiate on the three-year interim period; nor, for that matter, does Belgrade, by taking part in those negotiations, compromise on any issue of principle about the long-term future of Kosovo. My hon. Friend is right to say that those who want there to be an independent Kosovo—and that does not embrace the Contact Group—would be well advised to take this opportunity to create the democratic structures that would establish a political community within Kosovo which, if independence were to be the outcome at some future date, could be ready to take that extra step. However, for the time being, we propose a democratic, self-governing Kosovo within the Federal Republic but with extensive control over its own affairs.
My hon. Friend asked also about the legal base for any action. We are clear that we have legal authority for action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe and we are all deeply worried that we shall be looking at just such a catastrophe unless we are able to get a political settlement under way. I stress to my hon. Friend and to the House that the proposal that I have outlined this afternoon was welcomed unanimously by the Security Council and that no permanent member disagreed with it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As a relative newcomer to the sponsorship of the concept of military deterrence, does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that the best chance of deterring an aggressor is to be as specific as possible in stating what military action will follow if that aggressor fails to comply with requirements? Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the possibility of military action against Serbia, will he spell out clearly whether he means that it will be simply air action, unsupported by anything else? Does he mean that such action will take place only in the disputed area of Kosovo, or will it extend to Serbia itself?
Mr. Cook: As for late converts, the hon. Gentleman may like to remember that many people on the Labour Benches condemned Saddam Hussein while the hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party were arming him.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about military intervention, I frankly believe that there is a lot of merit in keeping President Milosevic guessing about exactly what we would do. The hon. Gentleman is, however, quite correct to say that, if there were military action, it is unlikely that it could be confined to the province of Kosovo.
Mr. John Austin: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and others in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his determination and perseverance in bringing about a viable political settlement that all sides to the dispute should adopt? However, will my right hon. Friend tell the parties involved that the agreement is for the interim, that there will be final status negotiations in three years' time, and that there is no possibility of the international community's countenancing any change in the internationally recognised borders of Macedonia or Albania? Will he also tell them categorically that nothing is ruled out of the final options, including the possibility of an independent Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: I took an opportunity during my visit to Skopje to see the Foreign Minister of Macedonia and to
606
ensure him of our continuing commitment to the territorial integrity of Macedonia. We have set out a number of principles for the negotiations. We regard them not as matters for negotiation, but as points to guide the parties in their negotiation of the framework document. One of the principles is respect for the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic and of neighbouring countries. Another is that there should be no unilateral change to the territorial integrity of any party in the area from which the parties to the talks come.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we are discussing an interim period, and that a review clause will provide for a review under international auspices and with international mediation. At present, no particular outcome is ruled out, but I hope that all sides will come to the talks ready to make a serious effort to achieve stability during the three-year period. If Belgrade wishes Kosovo to remain in the Federal Republic at the end of the three-year period, the best way to achieve that is to demonstrate that the Kosovo Albanians can have a future of peace, stability and freedom from repression within the Federal Republic.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: In the unwelcome event of military action by NATO, can the Foreign Secretary make any plans to protect the civilian population, and to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: We are already extensively involved in humanitarian aid in Kosovo, and Britain is one of the major donors to the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations. Plainly, if military action were to be taken, I would certainly seek to avoid an impact on the civilian population. I cannot guarantee that there will be no such impact, but that will be a heavy factor in our consideration of whether to proceed with military action.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the part that he played in putting together the peace package. Does he agree that, if troops are to be used to build confidence between the two sides, they must be introduced speedily to become part of the negotiations? Does he further agree that military action by NATO would make almost impossible both the use of ground troops and peace in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to say that the reason for deployment of ground troops would be to provide the confidence and reassurance on the ground in which we can start the process of reconstructing a democratic, self-governing Kosovo. His argument also has force when he says that progress in the political settlement would be more difficult to achieve in the wake of military action. However, if no progress can be made, we would not be losing progress by taking military action.
Belgrade must reckon carefully on the options available. One option is to take part in the talks, and to secure a future not only for itself but for the Serb community in Kosovo. If Belgrade fails to take that option, it should not doubt our resolve and willingness to press home with what we have committed ourselves to do

607
in the North Atlantic Council. I hope that it will not come to that, but it is very much in the hands of Belgrade to respond positively to an offer that is in its own interests.
Mr. John Randall: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his balanced statement. Does he agree that, if in these grave circumstances NATO were to use force against the belligerents, although Yugoslav targets might be readily identifiable, the nature of the KLA guerrilla force means that it might shelter among the civilian population and it would be almost impossible to take action against it? If that were tried, there would be grave consequences for the civilian population.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment on my balanced statement, which I take as a compliment. His assessment of the KLA is right. I cannot add or detract from what he said because it was fair comment. The KLA should not ignore the fact that its behaviour will be a factor in whether military action is taken against Belgrade. There could be no question of the North Atlantic Council authorising action against Belgrade for failing to take part in talks if the KLA fails to take part in them. We are keen to ensure that we use all the levers to try to achieve progress towards peace and stability, but we are not going to be conscripted as the KLA' s air force.
Mr. Tony Benn: In considering the composition of the ground troops who may be sent in, has the Foreign Secretary taken account of the fact that, within living memory, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Serbs were killed by German troops? The survivors of those massacres are still there. Might that factor influence the composition of ground forces?
Mr. Cook: German troops are already present in Macedonia, where they are welcome and ready to take
608
part in any extraction force necessary in relation to the verification mission. I hope that it will not be necessary to provide a military expedition to secure the verifiers because we have a clear commitment from Belgrade to look after their safety. Any ground troops would be committed in support of a political settlement. One therefore hopes that, as both sides would have supported such a settlement, they would welcome the ground troops who would give it an opportunity to work. My principal frustration in trying to achieve progress in the western Balkans is the readiness of all sides to disappear into the period of history in which their grievances began. If we are to make progress at Rambouillet, I hope that both sides come to look to the future, not the past.
Mr. John Bercow: The Foreign Secretary has said several times, in this statement and elsewhere, that British ground troops might be deployed to police a settlement. Has he absolutely ruled out the possibility that they will be deployed not in Kosovo but in Serbia in the event of the failure of such a settlement?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman invites me to contemplate a military action that we have not considered and do not have in contemplation. I therefore do not intend to rule it out or in, but I would want to think long and hard before embracing the proposal that he made.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an important statement this afternoon, but many hon. Members and the public might have expected another on the public sector pay settlement. It is outrageous that we have not been given an opportunity to question Ministers, given today's Downing street statement that the Government will use the House of Commons as a proper forum in which to air the nation's grievances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, Ministers will have heard what he had to say.

Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.15 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The most important thing about the Bill, and what should be the most important thing about this debate and this issue, is that it is all very simple. What our manifesto said is simple and this legislation is simple—and we can best judge it if we recognise the almost exquisite simplicity of what it proposes. The Bill removes the right presently enjoyed by some 750 people—almost 100 more than the total number of Members elected to the House—to sit and vote in our Parliament solely on the basis of their birth and without any consideration whatever of their personal qualities or achievements. The Bill will modernise the way in which we handle legislation, improve our Parliament and so lead to a better Britain.
  Hereditary peers lose the right to an automatic place in Parliament in clause 1. They should then have the right of any citizen to vote, and to stand for and to be a Member of this House without disclaiming their peerages. That is the effect of clause 2. Clause 3 makes consequential repeals to the Peerage Act 1963, and clause 4 brings the main provisions of the Act into force at the end of the Session in which it is passed, cancels the existing writs of summons that otherwise run for a whole Parliament, and provides for a power to ensure that peers can register as parliamentary electors for the first register that comes into force after they leave the Lords.
  The proposals follow precisely those in our manifesto: to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in our legislature as
  "an initial self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future."
  It has been suggested that an amendment may be moved from the Cross Benches in the House of Lords whereby some 90 or so of the 750 might remain in the transitional House until the second stage of reform. The Government have made it clear from the outset that we would prefer to proceed by consensus. However, if such a proposal is made in the Lords and the Government's legislative programme is not being frustrated, we are minded to accept it. Even with such an amendment, the automatic rights of hereditary peers would have been removed and those elected by their peers would serve in a personal capacity—their heirs would not inherit their seats.
  Mr. Tony Benn: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me regarding the mechanisms of the Bill. If the Lords amendment is moved and accepted by the House and the Government, and peers elect their contemporaries for the purpose of the
  610
  transitional arrangements, will there be a statutory provision or will they be created peers and life peers again? On what basis will they sit once their right to sit as hereditary peers is removed by the Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my right hon. Friend, they are precisely the matters that will be addressed by the amendment that will, no doubt, be moved in another place. It is the other place's amendment, not ours, and I do not propose to address it today.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Lady saying that, if a similar amendment is moved in this place, the Government are not minded to accept it?
  Mrs. Beckett: No such proposal appears in the Bill as it stands and nor do the Government intend to insert it.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If an amendment is moved in this place, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it—and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. Should the Bill be actually obstructed in the Lords, despite being a clear manifesto pledge, or should it appear that the consensus and good faith for which we hope are lacking, then it is to this simple Bill that we would wish to apply the Parliament Acts so that the legislation can be carried in this Parliament, albeit after a delay.
  The Government have provided for a two-day Second Reading debate for two reasons: first, the Bill, although short, is momentous in its effects; and, secondly, we recognise that hon. Members may want to range over matters relating to the White Paper. I intend to focus on the content of the Bill. In tomorrow's debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, will focus on the transitional House.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Before the right hon. Lady moves on, I should like to return to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). Is the right hon. Lady saying that if an amendment were to be tabled in this House of the type referred to, she would invite her right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it? She intends, in effect, to put a pistol to the heads of Members of the upper House. If that is the case, the word that would be applied in the courts is blackmail, but as I am sure that that is not a parliamentary expression, shall we simply call it threatening behaviour by the Government?
  Mrs. Beckett: Absolute claptrap. The matter is simple and straightforward: this is what the Government said that we intended to do and it is what we propose to do. We are perfectly willing to work with members of the House of Lords if that is what they want, in order to allow some of them to remain on the basis that is being discussed. However, the Government propose to act as we have set out in the Bill itself.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: There is not much point, but I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House whether she thinks it right and desirable that existing hereditary peers, who play a substantial part in the present role of the House of Lords, should continue to be able to play such a part during the transitional period? If she agrees that it is right and that that is why the Government would accept the amendment, why are they not prepared to include such a provision in a Bill to which they could apply the Parliament Acts?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have just given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the reason. What he is discussing is not the Government's proposal; the Government's proposal was in our manifesto and it is before the House today. We are prepared to take, on advisement, other proposals that might come from another place. We are prepared to consider them not unsympathetically, but we are not prepared to run the risk of the Bill before us today not being the same Bill, in essence, when it leaves this House.
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I will, but then I must get on.
  Mr. Cash: Given the drastic treatment that the Government propose for the House of Lords and the peremptory manner in which they are introducing it, will the right hon. Lady be good enough to tell us whether she proposes to use the guillotine at some point during the proceedings?
  Hon. Members: On the peers.
  Mrs. Beckett: Neither on the peers, nor on the Bill. As I hope to show later in my speech, to call the measure drastic is to put it a little high; it is certainly long overdue.
  I turn now from what we are doing—modernising our Parliament and delivering better government—and how we are doing that in this Bill, to why we are doing it. To have a legislature in which 750 people are entitled to sit by virtue of their birth alone is utterly, totally, literally, indefensible. It is indefensible in principle and indefensible in practice. It simply cannot be defended.
  As has often been said, if one went to the airport and was told that the pilot did not himself have a pilot's licence, but that there was no need to worry because his grandfather had a licence, one simply would not get on the plane. However, we do not need to rely on analogy; we can rest on experience.
  A few weeks ago, for example, the 12th Earl of Dunmore flew from his home in Tasmania to take his seat in the House of Lords for the first time. He explained his action as a gesture—almost, I suppose, a sentimental gesture to his forebears—and a recognition of his heritage.
  612
  I am not attacking him for that. He has that right, even if his journey sounded like a particularly superior kind of tourist trip. In fact, far from attacking him, I am extremely grateful to him. What the Earl did demonstrates that unless we pass the Bill, he can go on popping in whenever the fancy takes him for the rest of his life, and his heirs after him.
  In his one pleasantly unassuming person, the Earl destroys with brutal clarity the Opposition's case. In their 1997 campaign guide, they said that
  "it is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  Really? It was reported that the 12th Earl of Dunmore was born in Australia, has always lived in Australia and had never even visited this country before. Yet he and another 61 hereditary peers who no longer even make their home in Britain can, if they choose, turn up, take the taxpayer's shilling towards their expenses—taxes to which they may well not contribute—and exercise their right to speak and vote on our health service, our schools and our housing. They have the power to affect all our lives and then just go home.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If the right hon. Lady wants to proceed from these particular examples to a general conclusion, why did she not frame the Bill to exclude people who do not live in this country? If she wants to use another example, why does she not get on with it, instead of concentrating on a minority of peers who are untypical of the hard work and long hours put in here by the overwhelming majority?
  Mrs. Beckett: Getting on with it is precisely what we intend to do and what the Opposition apparently do not want.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, particularly as she says that she wants to get on with it. Given that she claims to attach great importance to a thoroughgoing reform of the House of Lords, why is she unable this afternoon to give the House an indicative timetable within which full reform will be completed? Will the right hon. Lady at least assure the House that she expects reform to be completed within her remaining political lifetime?
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I can definitely give that assurance. I concede that the great hereditary principle that the Opposition want to defend allows a mere 62 foreign residents a place in our legislature at present. But on what basis did the remaining 688 find a place?
  Some undoubtedly did so as a result of the public service performed by their forebears, but even if they are themselves assiduous in their public service, it is not on that basis that their own place has been earned. Others, as we all know, benefited from dubious favours—sometimes sexual, sometimes financial—performed for past monarchs, sometimes centuries past. I hope that I am not being too offensive when I say that, looking at a very long list, it is no longer apparent how others got their place at all. Whether or not hereditary peers are qualified to legislate is academic. The fact is that they do not have to be qualified.
  It is not only the hereditary principle that is indefensible, but what happens in practice because its effect is to perpetuate a 3:1 permanent in-built majority for the Tory party over the Labour party in the House of Lords.

  613
  When lost for any argument of merit about the Lords, Tory Members and Tory commentators are prone to fall back on the line, "Well, it works", as the Leader of the Opposition said the other day. It works for them, all right.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made a fascinating but unintentionally revealing comment in response to my statement on the matter on 20 January.
  "We will go into the next general election,"
  he said,
  "without knowing what Parliament will look like on the other side of that election."—[Official Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 912.]
  Yes, that is what happens at general elections, at least in this House.
  Of course the Conservatives are used to one half of Parliament staying the same—staying 3:1 Tory, no matter what happens at the general election. For example, in the last general election, the Conservative party got 34 per cent. of the popular vote, but it has 66 per cent. of the membership of the House of Lords. The Labour party got 48 per cent. of the popular vote in that election, but still had only 24 per cent. of the membership of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I do not expect her to have the exact figures at her fingertips, but in developing the case of the Tory-dominated upper House, can she give the House some idea of the number of times that that Tory-dominated House voted against legislation or measures initiated by the previous Conservative Government?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am coming to precisely that point.
  Defenders of the present system like to pretend, as the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to suggest, that the House of Lords is even-handed between Labour and Tory Governments. It is sometimes suggested that it is only if a Labour Government have lost popularity and ground that peers begin to flex their muscles, responding to a shift in the popular will. Rubbish.
  No Labour Government have ever had a bigger mandate than this one, and even the most staunch Conservative will hardly yet claim an irresistible surge of popular support towards that party. Yet even in this Parliament, the House of Lords has—almost always on the balance of votes of hereditary peers—defeated us almost three times more often, on average, than it did the previous Tory Government, even at the depths of that Government's unpopularity and rejection, and after the gradual withering of their majority. Nor is that the slightest bit unusual. For decades, the track record of the House that the Conservative party calls independent has been persistent obstruction of Labour Governments, with occasional rejection of the Tories.
  If ever the people needed the claimed protection of the House of Lords, they needed it when, some 600 years after it was first tried, a British Government were again stupid enough and unjust enough to introduce a poll tax. What protection did the people get from the House of Lords? With a few honourable exceptions, the Lords waved the poll tax on its way, rejoicing.
  In this Parliament, on the votes of hereditary peers, the Lords have tried to make exceptions to the handguns ban following Dunblane, to undermine the phasing-out of assisted places in some schools, and to put in exceptions to the national minimum wage.
  614
  Some Opposition Members have started to say that they do not mind the House of Lords being replaced, as long as it is replaced with something better. Anything would be better. It is impossible to imagine a system for selecting a legislature that is worse than selecting the first-born child—mostly only the first-born male child—of the same named families in perpetuity, irrespective of whether that person is even the most interested or best qualified among the members of those families. Talk about first come, first served.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. She seems to be objecting to the randomness of the hereditary principle. She says that anything would be better than that. By the same token, would it be better if people were judged by juries that were appointed, rather than selected at random?
  Mrs. Beckett: No one is selected at random to enter this House or the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are placed there as a result of patronage. In the transitional House, the situation would certainly be better because at least everyone in it would be there as a result of what he or she had done, and not as a result of what his or her great-great-grandfather did.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: This will be the last time that I give way because I know how many hon. Members want to speak, and I want to get on.
  Mr. Robathan: I find the right hon. Lady's revelling in many years of class warfare both interesting and amusing. I agree with much of what she says, but will she state categorically that she believes that the present Leader of the House of Lords would be there even if it were not a fact that her father was a Labour Prime Minister?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is an insufferably insulting assertion, which the hon. Gentleman repeatedly makes. My right hon. and noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords is in that position because of her own abilities, qualities and achievements; she is not there in the place of her father, as everyone in the country is perfectly well aware.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to give way to one of my hon. Friends, but it must be for the last time.
  Dr. Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a considerable number of hon. Members of this House are the daughters or sons of Members of Parliament, which does not imply that they are here only because of their birth, but that they have been elected on their own merits? Is not that precisely the point that my right hon. Friend was attempting to make about the current Leader of the House of Lords?
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. As I said, should the Bill pass into law, it will remain the case that all those entitled to serve in the House of Lords will be there as a result of their own achievements.

  615
  As for the ridiculous nonsense about the House of Lords being a House of "Tony's cronies", even if all the hereditary peers were to go at once, in the transitional House—still 500 strong—there would still be a 2:1 majority over Labour. The Tory party has never thought that its huge majority among hereditary peers was enough, and when in government, consistently created twice as many Tory as Labour life peers as well. To listen to today's Tory party, anyone would think that this Prime Minister had created vast and unprecedented numbers of Labour peers, whereas only half the peers created in this Parliament have been Labour peers. That is why we are still in a minority, even among life peers.
  Far from being stuffed with Tony's cronies, it is nearer the truth to say—with deep respect to the Father of the House—that the House of Lords is stuffed with Ted's cronies, Margaret's cronies and John's cronies. Today's life peers result from the actions of eight Prime Ministers over 40 years, and each of them was put there on the basis of his or her own contribution to public life. This Prime Minister will be the first to give up even a fraction of his powers of patronage.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I am sorry.
  The Prime Minister is to forgo his right of veto over the names nominated by leaders of other parties. He is to give up to an independent appointments commission his right to nominate Cross-Bench peers. The Government have also made it plain that we shall not seek more than parity in numbers with the Conservative party in the transitional House, and that we do not believe that any party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. I look forward to hearing the Conservative party spokesman say the same.
  There remains one further major argument about the nature of the Government's proposals: that stages 1 and 2 of reform should go together, that it is too soon to get rid of hereditary peers, and that they should not go until we have decided just what should replace them.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I am awfully sorry. I must get on. I feel confident that I could answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Lady does not know what it is yet.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do.
  There is a flaw in that, at first sight, reasonable argument, and it is really a rather large flaw. It is that the Conservative party has been deploying that argument, with every appearance of sincerity, for 88 years.
  The Conservative party conceded officially that the hereditary principle had to go at the start of this century, but if it has its way today, that will still be the basis of the House of Lords at the start of the next century. What is more, if we listen to these siren voices and leave all the
  616
  hereditaries in place, we shall leave them—for they are the largest number—in charge. They could dictate what would replace them, and so continue to perpetuate the hold on power that they now enjoy.
  While the hereditaries remain, not only their votes, but their voices bedevil any proper consideration of what stage 2 ought to be. Previous attempts at reform have all failed precisely because stage 1 and stage 2 were taken together. We all know that there are those—even in this House, let alone in the House of Lords—whose real desire is to preserve the Lords as it is now, with membership and all, permanent Tory majority and all.
  These people have never had to come clean, because for the past 88 years, they have been able to tie everybody else up in knots by asserting that, of course, they are willing to go when their day comes, but first, they must insist on knowing exactly what will replace them. Divide and rule has been their principle: they have always been able to divide those who wanted change and that is why, after 88 years, they still rule.
  In fact, I believe that we will never get a sensible, mature debate about what stage 2 ought to be while that debate is dominated, as it always has been, by the self-interest of today's House of Lords and of the Conservative party, and not by the national interest.
  In the meantime, we have dealt with the argument, "We don't know what will follow the abolition of the rights of hereditary peers." What will initially replace the hereditaries will be a transitional House, which will be much better—because it will be based on the achievements of today's membership—than the one it will replace.
  That brings me to the last, desperate argument of the opponents of change: "If it ain't broke," they say, "don't fix it." A membership of 750 hereditary peers—not even the best qualified in their families, just the first—that is broke. A permanent 3:1 Tory majority—whatever the outcome of the general election—that is broke. The Lords having as many powers to handle legislation as the House of Commons, which they mostly choose to use to revise legislation, but which they could use to block legislation and stop it in its tracks, and to destroy the legislative programme of an elected Government—that is broke.
  In 1911—when the Conservative party of the day displayed more enlightenment than its present-day successor and first conceded the end of the hereditary principle in our legislature—some men had two votes, a few still had no vote and no women could vote, let alone stand for Parliament. In those 88 years, our country has changed beyond recognition, our society has changed beyond recognition and it is long past time that our Parliament changed too; 750 people are Members of the House of Lords by accident of birth.
  Almost all those people are men; almost all are white; most have little, if any, experience of school, health care or housing in common with most of their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. Like everyone else, they have a place in our national life, but it is not in our Parliament.
  4.44 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords Bill as it fails to address the role of the Second Chamber, its relationship to this House and its long term composition and hence,

  617
  rather than improving the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a sustainable, balanced and effective constitution, it merely adds to the incoherence of Her Majesty's Government's piecemeal constitutional changes."
  There are two parallel but distinct debates. There is the debate about the Government's small-minded proposals for so-called reform of the House of Lords, which is piecemeal, incoherent and unsustainable. There is also a genuine debate about the reform of Parliament as a whole, which will come about because it is required and because it is being made more necessary and being expedited by the Government's piecemeal, and therefore unstable, constitutional changes.
  This debate is not about the Government's democratic legitimacy in proposing a plan that, as the Leader of the House of Commons, reasonably pointed out, was in their manifesto. It is about the wisdom of doing so in the way that they have, and about the Government's motives. In a strange twist, we are not having to defend the hereditary principle because the Government are not attacking it. They have made it clear that they do not question the hereditary principle in relation to the monarchy, but in signalling their willingness to accept the Weatherill proposals in the House of Lords for the transitional phase, neither are they questioning the principle in relation to the other place. We do not know how long the transitional phase will last.
  Maria Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that the monarchy, although it may be based on the hereditary principle, no longer has a veto over the legislation of the House? Does that not make a bit of a difference?
  Dr. Fox: The monarchy is not an example of the hereditary principle; it is the embodiment of it. The Leader of the House and her hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) are arguing that it is not the hereditary principle, but the issue of to which part of the constitution it is applied that is at stake. That is very different from attacking the hereditary principle itself, and perhaps the hon. Lady should think through her argument before she intervenes again.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Would not it be more logical for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) to argue that the monarchy should lose its right to give assent for Bills to become Acts of Parliament?
  Dr. Fox: It would be logical from what the hon. Lady says, but I suspect that she reflects the opinion of Labour Back Benchers rather than that of the Government. I am sure that that will come out later in the debate.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I shall make some progress if I may.
  The tone and language used by the Leader of the House are disturbing. Despite the fact that she does not believe that hereditary peers should remain in the other place, she would have done well to thank those who have given tremendous service over the years, whether hereditary or life peers, to Parliament and to the governance of our country. This tone of spite and resentment is an
  618
  unwelcome addition to the debate. If the House of Lords as currently constituted has worked well, it is because of the calibre of those peers and their willingness to engage in public service for, it must be said, a good deal less than the remuneration of Members of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, defending the right of the 62 foreign-based nationals to sit in the House of Lords, or does he have proposals to tackle that?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman should be wondering about Scottish MPs and their right to vote in this Parliament post-devolution, instead of worrying about other foreign nationals.
  We must ask ourselves how the Government arrived at their current position. They clearly know what and whom they dislike, so they know what they want to abolish. However, so little is their understanding of the constitutional complexities, they have no idea of what to replace the House of Lords with. The right hon. Lady says, "We know what we will replace it with. We will replace it with a royal commission, which will think about how it proposes to replace it. Then we will have a joint committee, which will think about what the royal commission has already thought about." That is supposed to be clear and decisive government. The Government have started yet another constitutional initiative without any idea of how it will finish.
  The Government's obsession with composition rather than function shows their lack of understanding of the role or necessity of a second Chamber, and how much these changes are based on their perceived party advantage. It was interesting that, in previous debates, the only interventions were on the question of which party had the greater advantage. [Laughter.] I accept that there is a Conservative advantage in the upper House, and I shall come to that in a moment. No one in the real world could fail to recognise that fact, but there must be better reasons for reforming part of our Parliament than that.
  Of course, the Government did not even want a royal commission. They were pushed into having one, against their will, as a fig leaf to cover the intellectual nakedness of their argument. The prelude was the White Paper. In her speech, the Leader of the House returned to the sort of interesting arithmetic of which the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might have been proud. In the White Paper, she states that there are 476 Conservatives in the House of Lords, out of a total of 1,165. To me, that says "41 per cent.". The next sentence reads:
  "As can be seen, the Conservatives have a clear majority over the other parties overall".
  This is the least informative and most incoherent White Paper with which we have been presented for a long time. It is a second-rate propaganda sheet, which would have failed the Advertising Standards Authority's "legal, decent, honest and truthful" test. It is a complete distortion of the facts. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady chose to reiterate those "facts" today, when she said that the

  619
  Conservatives had an overall majority in the House of Lords. Perhaps she would like to take this opportunity to correct her arithmetic.
  Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman would have heard if he had been listening, I referred throughout my remarks to those who are entitled to sit in the House of Lords.
  Dr. Fox: The clear impression given in black and white by the White Paper—from which I quoted a moment ago—and given by other Ministers is that the Conservatives have an overall majority in the House of Lords. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has just confirmed that that is untrue.
  The Government's case is a masterpiece of rewritten history and distorted logic. First, we were told by the Leader of the House of Lords—the right hon. Lady repeated it today—that we cannot have one—stage reform, because hereditary peers have blocked previous attempts at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "True."] I hear "true" from the Government Front Bench. It is worth pointing out, however, that the last reform, in 1967–68, was accepted by the upper House, but blocked in the House of Commons. It was not hereditary, life or any other peers who blocked that reform; it was blocked by this House.
  Secondly, the right hon. Lady says that there must be speedy reform. Anyone can see, however, that a two-stage reform could take longer than a one-stage reform: any interim House's establishment could be held up by the Parliament Acts, and the process for the second stage might have to start all over again. The only reasonable reading is that the Government want to scrap the hereditary peers, and then kick the whole process into the long grass.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: So far, the hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for having a royal commission and for being forced into having a royal commission when they did not want one, for excessive speed and for embarking on a process that he thinks will take too long. What is his position? Does he accept that a change of this magnitude requires public consultation before the final form of the House of Lords is settled, or would he prefer the Government to produce a final proposal and force it through?
  Dr. Fox: Our position has always been clear. We want a single-stage reform if there is to be reform, and we believe that it should be preceded by public consultation. That is why we set up a commission under the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay—nearly a year ahead of the Government's proposals for a royal commission, which they were pushed into precisely because of our wider proposals.
  Let me take up the right hon. Lady's point about general elections. She was trite but predictable when she said that we never know what Parliament will look like before we go into a general election; but we do know what the structure of Parliament will look like when we go into a general election. Because it is clear that the Government have no intention of pushing through a reform before the next general election, the public will be asked to vote without knowing what the structure of their
  620
  Parliament will be by the end of its Session, and that is something that we have not experienced before. It means asking the people to accept that the form of their government is to change, without knowing what it will be. That is the point that I was making; the right hon. Lady was being purposely obtuse.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Hope.
  Dr. Fox: I will give way to my hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope).
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Fox: I said that I would give way first to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not very clear, if I may say so. I had already called the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope).
  Mr. Hope: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for about 10 minutes and I am still confused. I should be grateful if he would clarify the position: do the Opposition support, or not support, the hereditary principle—yes or no?
  Dr. Fox: We have made it perfectly clear that the hereditary principle in itself is not something that we challenge. Nor is it something that is challenged by the Government in their position towards the monarchy, but we accept that the Government made their policy clear in their manifesto and that change will happen. Therefore, the debate is not about whether we will defend the rights of hereditary peers; we have accepted that those rights in the House of Lords are to end. The argument is about how we wish the House of Lords to be constituted.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that any worthwhile reform of the House of Lords should not be power neutral, but strengthen the power of the legislature in relation to the Executive in general, and in relation to the position and powers of the Prime Minister in particular?
  Dr. Fox: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I wait some time before I come to that matter. I wish to deal with it in some detail.
  We have to ask what sort of model for Parliament the Government seek in the Bill. Do the Government want an effective revising Chamber? It seems not because they seem to want, effectively, one-Chamber government, where the Executive are in control. They seem to want a Commons that is merely a rubber stamp for the Executive, in the same way as the Cabinet, with its half-hour sessions, is merely a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's inner circle.

  621
  That is why the second Chamber is to be reduced to a quango. Of course, there will be a new appointments commission. Of course, the Prime Minister will give up his right to appoint Cross Benchers—big deal; we know who will appoint the appointments commission. Knowing that it lacks either legitimacy or longevity, the interim Chamber—the halfway house—will be a pliant, supplicant body.
  That reflects perfectly the Prime Minister's instincts. He is not democrat man; he is Executive man. That is perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the amendments that the Government say that they are willing to accept—the so-called Weatherill proposals. That reflects the Prime Minister's preference for expediency over principle.
  The Leader of the House reiterated what was clearly in the Labour party manifesto, yet we now hear that 91 hereditary peers will survive in the interim Chamber, and she said that the previous one lasted for 80 years; that is, they will survive if they are good girls and boys and if they have the intellectual rigour, independence of mind and parliamentary tenacity of the so-called Blair babes.
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish those peers to remain, the remedy is simple: he can vote for the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: I understand the procedural excuse that has been given by the right hon. Lady, but the Government have signalled in advance that they will accept something that is utterly out of step with their manifesto—they will accept hereditary peers remaining and voting in the House of Lords. However, that proposal will be introduced only in the House of Lords, so a major constitutional change will not be debated in this Chamber and, if it is, it will be rejected by the Government in this Chamber—the Chamber that the Government claim has democratic legitimacy. It will be put forward in the House of Lords and fully debated in the Chamber that the Government claim has no democratic legitimacy. That is a perverse position for a Bill that supposedly strengthens our constitutional relationships. It says everything about the Government's relationship and respect for our democratic traditions.
  Several questions remain unanswered. Perhaps the Minister can answer them tonight. If reform is such a priority, why was the royal commission not set up 20 months ago—a question that the hon. Member for Corby might like to ask? When was Lord Wakeham invited to chair the royal commission? I understand that, although it was such an important and fundamental appointment, he was asked to do so only 48 hours before the announcement. Will the Labour party give advice and evidence to the royal commission? Will it be in public? Will all the hearings be in public?
  When will the new appointments system be set up? Why cannot it be set up now? We know the answer—so that the Prime Minister can pack the Chamber in advance. Have the Government ruled out a fully elected second Chamber? How do we know that we will get from stage one to stage two? How long will the Joint Committee last?
  Those are all legitimate questions that should have been answered by the Leader of the House. They are not simply procedural things to be kicked into the long grass, as the Government want. Parliament should have answers to those questions as we start on the process of considering the Bill.
  622
  In answer to the point raised by hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we are today engaged in a debate on an issue that is much bigger than the Bill and much wider than the Government's viewpoint. We are engaged in a serious debate that should, and does, cross party lines. The debate is about the case for real reform of Parliament as a whole.
  I believe that we require a stronger Parliament. First, however, we shall have to decide not only what we want Parliament to do, but Parliament's relationship to the Executive, to the judiciary and to Europe. Only after we have decided what we want Parliament to do should we divide the powers between the two Houses—assuming that we believe in a bicameral system. Only then can we decide the membership and size of the two Chambers. Secondly, we need a stronger Parliament because of all the different trends that have emerged in our recent history.
  Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is using an argument—that we should decide everything now, except composition—that is similar to the one used by Austen Chamberlain in 1911, during the passage of the Parliament Act 1911. All one would have to do to make the two arguments exactly similar is to substitute the word "composition" for "powers". In 1911, the Conservative party was arguing that composition should be discussed, but that powers should not be. Nevertheless, the basis of the arguments is exactly the same: let us delay. Has the hon. Gentleman not learnt that we are fed up with delay and that we want action?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady raises several issues. The first is that, as my grandfather was barely a toddler in 1911, I cannot be held answerable for events in 1911. Secondly, things have moved on. I shall explain in a moment why I believe that we now have to have a different approach, and why the Opposition want reform to be made in one go. I am simply telling the hon. Lady and the House that we should have a wider perspective on the reform that we want.
  The trend in our democratic history has been to move from unaccountability to accountability. Recently, however, there has been a reversal in that trend. We have had, for example, European directives and legislative initiation by an unelected Commission. Judicial activism is increasing, questioning ministerial decisions on the basis not of legality but of merit. The Human Rights Act 1998 will give us judge-made law. Closed election lists are being introduced in legislation, so that politicians, not people, will have powers. There has also been an increase in the Executive's power because of patronage and the Whip system.
  The way in which we are governed has changed fundamentally. Since 1970, there has been a 23 per cent. reduction in the amount of primary legislation passed by Parliament, but a 52 per cent. increase in the amount of secondary legislation passed by Parliament. Is that legislation scrutinised properly? Do we as a Parliament feel that we properly scrutinise legislation—the laws by which we are governed?
  Is there not a role for a strengthened upper House to take on precisely that function? Does not our consideration of this Bill provide an opportunity for us to

  623
  strengthen Parliament as a whole, and to ensure that our legislation is properly scrutinised, so that we can do our job properly?
  Mr. James Plaskitt: As we are receiving a lecture from the hon. Gentleman, will he remind us what the Conservative party did in 18 years in government to strengthen the role of this House against the Executive?
  Dr. Fox: After winning our landslide victory, one of the first things we did was to establish and strengthen Select Committees, which provide a way of scrutinising the Executive. Although it is legitimate to ask why, after 18 years in office, we did not introduce such proposals, I shall, in a moment, explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly how we did introduce such proposals.
  There are several ways in which we could establish a strengthened second Chamber. Moreover, such a Chamber does not necessarily entail a weakened House of Commons. One of the House's failures in 1967–68 was to believe that any increase in the strength of the other place would cause a weakened Commons. Such an outcome is not inevitable.
  Parliament currently does not perform certain functions. Is it democratically acceptable, for example, for a Minister—in a Government of whatever political complexion—to go to a Council of Ministers meeting and to agree to a directive that must be obeyed in British law although there was never any democratic scrutiny of that directive? Is there not a role somewhere in our legislature for providing such scrutiny? [Interruption.] I am appalled that there should be cat-calls from those on the Treasury Bench when I ask such a question. The House of Commons has to debate those legitimate issues.
  Just as it was true with devolution that we could not change the constitution in one part of the kingdom without affecting the other parts, so we cannot reform the House of Lords without reforming the House of Commons. If we are serious about constitutional reform, we shall have to have a meaningful debate about the House of Commons.
  There is invariably conflict for members of the governing party between the interests of Parliament and the interests of the party. That is unavoidable when the Executive sit in the legislature. Resolving that conflict is essential to our ability to protect the rights and liberties of those who elect us. Today will simply be the first part of that serious debate.
  Reform is welcome if it improves the way in which the people of Britain are governed, but the Bill neither seeks that nor results in it. It has been brought forward out of spite. It is designed to put the Labour party first. It is piecemeal and incoherent, and it will be unstable. For the sake of the good governance of the United Kingdom, we shall oppose it.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I strongly support the Bill. If the hereditary system were not so controversial, I should claim paternity of it. I was expelled from a Conservative-controlled House of Commons after I had sat here for 10 years on the ground that I was disqualified as a peer. I was re-elected and came back. I was sent to
  624
  an election court, where two judges declared that a peerage was "an incorporeal hereditament affixed in the blood and annexed to the posterity". I was so curious that I went and had some blood taken out. I still have it, although I am afraid that it is clotted now.
  On the basis of that judgment, the House thought that I was permanently disqualified from sitting here. I had many helpful letters. One man wrote and asked whether I could look up my birth certificate and see whether I was illegitimate, because if I was I would be all right. I also had a postcard from a Conservative peer saying that as far as he was concerned I was, but that had no legal validity.
  I welcome the Bill. However, let us be clear about the House of Lords. There is no magic or mystery about it. Every generation has done what it liked with the House of Lords. For my sins, I had to read the history of the place. Let me give the House a few examples. When peerages began in 1272, they were not hereditary. The Prime Minister is going back to Edward I, modernising himself back to the middle ages. Only in 1387 were all peerages created by letters patent. One young man proposed to Edward IV's daughter and was made a duke. When he got his dukedom he decided that he would not marry her, so his dukedom was taken away. There was another lad in 1549, William West, whose uncle was Lord De La Warr. He wanted the peerage, so he tried to poison his uncle and he was disinherited for life. The House of Lords can do what it likes.
  On 7 February 1649, when the House of Lords was abolished, Lord Salisbury got himself elected to the House of Commons—in the Cromwell period—first for King's Lynn and then for Hertford. The Cecils know where power is and they are always there. They are at it again.
  The treaty of Utrecht was passed in 1713 by swamping the House of Lords. In 1876, when the Government wanted to have Law Lords who were not hereditary peers, they introduced life peerages for Law Lords. In 1911, the Parliament Act was carried under a threat of swamping. In 1917—
  Mr. Peter Brooke rose
  Mr. Benn: I am finishing this little bit of history.
  In 1917, there were some German peers, so the Government passed the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 to take peerages away from the King's cousins who happened to be Germans. The Duke of Cumberland went down the pan on that basis. Then there was the creation of life peerages in 1958, and further legislation in 1963. We live in this mysterious building, where we are taught that history is around us and that we have been a democracy since Magna Carta, but any Government can do what they like with the House of Lords.
  I must warn my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that although she has done away with tribalism, she has not gone an inch towards democracy. There is not one single democratic ingredient in the Bill that I will vote for tomorrow night.
  Mr. Brooke: I was slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman omitted the original proposal to introduce life peers into the House of Lords in 1857, which was defeated by the Lords themselves.
  Mr. Benn: I tried for ten years to get out of the place, but I will not go into that again. I have touched on my own interests, which I felt I had to declare under the Nolan rules.

  625
  From 1945 until today, 11 Prime Ministers—including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—have created 1,082 peers. The right hon. Gentleman created a lot of peers during his premiership. It takes 43 million electors to elect 659 Members of Parliament. It took 10 men and one woman to appoint 1,082 life peers.
  This proposal has no democratic element at all. We have a transitional scheme, under which 75 hereditary peers will elect each other. A person will be able to get into Parliament by three ways—by being elected by a constituency, by being elected by other hereditary peers or by appointment by the Prime Minister, with all risk of cronyism removed. In all fairness, that is not a democratic system.
  Every life peer is unaccountable and irremovable, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's comment that it did not follow that life peers would stay for life must have frightened some of them up the other end. Presumably, if Lord Wakeham comes up with a scheme, the life peers will go too.
  I do not know when the second stage will come. Lord Wakeham is being assisted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others, and the royal commission must report by Christmas. There will then be the Joint Committee of both Houses. Following those debates, there will be legislation. However, I fear that the transitional scheme will be permanent—because it suits everybody at the top. The hereditary peers will have a corner of the other place, and the Prime Minister will retain his patronage.
  Mr. Forth: On the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman stood with the rest of his colleagues on the Labour party manifesto, he will be aware that the first page of the White Paper says:
  "Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election."
  Even if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the nonsense contained in that statement—which suggests that there will continue to be life peers but that, as time rolls on, their composition will be changed to reflect each election—does he agree that he, as a loyal Labour Member who stood on that manifesto, has committed himself to the continuation of life peers?
  Mr. Benn: I will leave my position to the end and I will make it clear that I will vote for the Bill. However, I will comment on the transitional and secondary stages.
  It took 700 years to make the House of Commons democratic. When I was born, in 1925, women did not have the vote until they were 30. I have lived in the period when the House of Commons became democratic. I believe that it could well take as long to get a democratic second chamber—because the powers-that-be do not want a democratic second chamber.
  The reason for that is that the person in Britain who needs the House of Lords more than anybody else is the Prime Minister of the day. That is one reason why the Prime Minister supports the monarchy. Every Prime Minister needs the monarchy to give him or her the Executive power to do all the things that Prime Ministers can do. It is interesting that Prime Ministers get their
  626
  legislative majority from the electors and their Executive authority from the Crown. At some stage, we must address that question.
  The present Prime Minister has created 55 peers since the election. That is probably no more than the average, which is about 22 a year. I hope that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup speaks tomorrow, because the House must recognise that Prime Ministers desperately need the House of Lords to control, to reward and to create vacancies in the House of Commons. Nobody has ever offered it to me, but many Members have been told, "If you are ready to go, old boy, we could get you in the other place and then we will have the vacancy we want for somebody in the House of Commons." That is the reason the Lords have continued. It began with the king, who wanted his placemen there, and continues to the present day.
  If we examine the prerogatives of the Prime Minister, in terms of appointments alone, we see that Prime Ministers appoint archbishops and bishops. Mrs. Thatcher appointed 26 bishops and archbishops. The Almighty himself would have been proud to have had such a record. The Prime Minister appoints all the judges. The Prime Minister appoints all the Commissioners in Brussels. The Prime Minister appoints Ministers and peers. Some say that Prime Ministers would like to appoint the mayor of London and the leader of the Labour party in Wales, but I shall not go into that. The Prime Minister's power of patronage is phenomenal.
  The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister has many other powers. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament, unlike in most civilised countries. The Prime Minister can sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The Prime Minister can make laws in Brussels without consulting Parliament. When I was on the Council of Ministers—I was President in 1977—every time I agreed to a directive in Brussels I was using the royal prerogative of treaty making. No consultation with Parliament was necessary.
  What we really need—and I am drafting it now—is some legislation. I am going to call it the modernisation of the premiership Bill. Every other institution is being modernised, but we need to modernise the premiership. It has become, by default, a presidential system without the checks and balances that exist in the United States. In America, the President has no control over Congress. We know that from the trouble he is in at the moment. President Clinton cannot control the Congress or the Senate, but here we have a president with no checks or balances. I say that as no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because Mrs. Thatcher was just the same and I dare say that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who honours us with his continued presence, also exercised presidential powers. The process is on going.
  My draft Bill will provide that all the Crown prerogatives exercised by the Prime Minister are subject to democratic vote in the House of Commons. It will be a simple Bill that will not even be an innovation. I do not know whether the House realises, but we can create peers ourselves. That is a bit of a puzzle, and I do not know whether anyone can tell me how we do so. I shall tell the House. When a Speaker retires, the House passes a humble address, praying that Her Majesty confer a signal mark of honour on whoever it is, Bernard Weatherill or Madam Speaker, in due course. We have established the

  627
  precedent of creating peers and, if we are to have a democratic Parliament and proper accountability, the House of Commons should restore itself instead of proceeding on the ground that it does everything it is told.
  I shall vote for the Bill because, as I say, it abolishes feudalism. However, when we come to the second stage I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if she thinks that I shall vote for hereditary peers to elect other hereditary peers, she has made a big mistake. If she thinks that I will vote for more life peers made by the Prime Minister, she has made a big mistake. One of the ways in which the premiership can be held in check or balance is by free votes in the House of Commons. I am in favour of the House of Commons, on matters of this magnitude, exercising its free judgment. I have been here an unconscionably long time—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I have. The more I look at this place, the more I fear that the House of Commons has surrendered its responsibility for representing people and has become a queue for office or for people hoping to get on the "Today" programme. I do not think that that is what we are all about.
  I wish my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House good luck with the Bill. She made a passionate speech and her Bill will go through, but she should not ask us to reverse the manifesto by endorsing the right of some hereditary peers to elect each other. I also beg the Government not to ask us to endorse the principle of appointment. Both those proposals are an absolute denial of the democratic principle on which this House is based and on which the second House should also be based.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), in his ever-useful radicalism, showed only one piece of naivete. That was in his belief that the House of Commons might at some stage cease to be influenced by patronage. I do not know what composition the House of Commons would need before the right hon. Gentleman's idealistic view about its immunity to the delights of office might prevail on it to oppose the Executive arm of government. What is certain is that he shows a degree of realism in his regard for the prime ministerial power, and I share whole-heartedly his regrets about the development of unchecked presidentialism. I shall have something to say about that later in my remarks.
  However, I shall begin by dealing with the Bill. As the Leader of the House said, it is a free-standing reform, worthy of consideration on its own merits, and I shall do it that justice. I must admit at the outset that I could not possibly emulate the right hon. Lady's lip-smacking relish in pronouncing the demise of the hereditary peers. I am not sure that it would be entirely seemly for me to try, although I enjoyed her performance and even the astringency with which she expressed her expectations.
  I certainly like the Bill's directness. The language of clause 1 has an historic, almost beautiful clarity. It states:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  628
  That, it seems to me, is the appropriate full stop to a passage of this country's history which, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield reminded us, is, from the standpoint of the millennium, of comparatively recent date.
  Mr. Benn: Of course, the clause will also knock out Lord Whitelaw, who sits in the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage but who is the first peer created with that name. Presumably there will have to be an amendment to allow him to stay: I do not know whether the Government have given any thought to that, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind.
  Mr. Maclennan: That sounds to me like a Committee point.
  In a modern democracy, the participation in the work of Parliament of hereditary peers is an anomaly that is not merely theoretically indefensible. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has shown rather scant regard for the deliberations of this House in withdrawing so early from the debate. He was unwilling to allow me to intervene in his speech, and evidently now is unwilling to listen to my speech—an example of the courtesy that one has come to expect from new Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman's answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) about whether the modern Conservative party believed in the hereditary principle was equivocal, to say the least. He answered it with a double negative, saying that the hereditary principle was not something that the Conservative party would challenge.
  By simple extension, that must be regarded as a straightforward endorsement of the hereditary principle, which baffled a few who were listening. I do not know what audience the hon. Gentleman addresses when he endorses the hereditary principle, but I think that it is the most indefensible of our historical relics.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: I give way to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).[Laughter.]
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the antediluvian right hon. Gentleman. What my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was making clear, and simply so, was that in monarchy, the hereditary principle is supported not only on the Conservative Benches. Labour Members also support that principle, because everyone who supports the retention of a monarchy must support the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Woodspring was asked to give his view on the hereditary principle in the context of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He did not choose to take refuge in the kind of evasion offered by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring also expressed a remarkable turnabout in the Conservative party's view: Conservatives used to think that the beauties of the British constitution were its capability of evolution and the step-by-step incrementalism that had enabled it to adapt uniquely and differently from the bouleversements that

  629
  characterised continental European and other constitutions that had changed only by revolution. Tonight, the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Conservative party, has offered the view that that is all for the past, and that the only way in which to approach modernisation of the House of Lords is through total reform of Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman went much wider than reform of the Commons by talking about the role of judges in our legislature, and about a vast range of other matters. He said that we could reform the House of Lords only if we had a new, written constitution. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, I am prepared to listen seriously to him, particularly if he produces a draft for our consideration.
  The Liberal Democrats have, of course, already done that: we have a coherent view of our goal, but we are not so unrealistic as to believe that we could introduce it in this Session of Parliament or the next and command the support of the House or of the British public. Incrementalism is how we have reformed our constitution, and it remains the way in which we must reform our constitution if we are to have any success in bringing it up to date.
  The theoretically indefensible nature of the House of Lords must be borne in mind when one views the Bill. In addition, the present House of Lords is a practical obstacle to the effective use of the second chamber to complement the work of the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East—
  Mr. Benn: Chesterfield, now.
  Mr. Maclennan: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I still think of him as he was when he played a part that I did not have the honour to witness, but of which I have read, in the reform of the House of Lords. It is that part for which he may well turn out to be remembered by posterity.
  What I am trying to pray in aid is the possibility that the upper House could valuably complement the work of the House of Commons in overseeing the work of the Executive. That would tackle the issue of the prerogative powers to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention, and to which I shall return.
  The fact that the majority of members of the House of Lords sit there by accident deprives that House of any claim to have its views deferred to by those who exercise public power on behalf of Britain's citizens. However informed may be the views expressed in the other place, those who owe their participation in decision making to election are entitled to disregard those views in reaching their decisions. The involvement of hereditary peers diminishes the democratic authority of Parliament as a whole when it questions and oversees the business of government and when it holds the Government to account. As those functions are the very business of Parliament, the hereditary peers must go.
  Hereditary peers are about as independent of party as I am. I shall not repeat the illustrative figures that the Leader of the House properly gave the House, but she did not specifically mention the 200 or so hereditary Cross Benchers. We will not find independence in their ranks either. When Labour has been in power, the Lords have defeated the Government an average of 60 times per Session, while Conservative Governments have been
  630
  defeated an average of only 13 times per Session. Those numbers have the familiar whiff of partisanship. Hereditary peers are not independent. They are Conservatives, either in or out of the closet.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome this first reform because we know that it is only the first of several. Some people—they have a respectable argument—would follow the footsteps of the great Tom Paine, dispense with the second Chamber and rely solely on the elected House of Commons. There are others—perhaps there are more in this House—who would keep the second Chamber only so long as it does not trespass on the turf of the House of Commons. Neither group has grasped the potential value in a modern democracy of a legitimate second Chamber, one that owes its legitimacy to election. Such a Chamber need not diminish the primacy of the House of Commons by usurping the roles currently exercised by this House.
  A legitimate elected second Chamber could amplify the work of Parliament by drawing to itself tasks not presently performed, or not effectively performed. I again invoke the support of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield for that concept. Although this House works hard on legislation and oversight of Government, there are substantial areas of public business that we do not effectively consider. The powers of Ministers that derive from the Crown prerogative are not under systematic scrutiny. In a modern constitutional democracy, that is not acceptable.
  Let me instance two examples. The power of public appointment has become ever more important, particularly with the establishment of executive agencies that spend huge sums of public money. There is no systematic oversight by Parliament or any requirement for advice and consent to appointments. We remember how the former Conservative Home Secretary asked Parliament to accept as head of the Prison Service a man whose background was not in the service. Shortly thereafter, when they had had a slight tiff and he wished to cover up his own responsibilities, he invited us to accept the man's dismissal. Parliament never considered the appointment or, properly, the dismissal. When great offices are given such responsibilities for effectively running our country, the time has come for Parliament to play a part in their oversight. That function would be suitable for a properly elected second Chamber. If it were to exercise such a role, this House would not be in any sense diminished, for we have never had such a power; if we have, it has never been effectively recognised or acted upon.
  My second example of the exercise of prerogative power is the power to make treaties. This House has a limited part. It may be called upon ex post facto to approve them or to legislate to give effect to our international undertakings, but there is no constitutional requirement for prior scrutiny, still less for hearings before advice and consent is given. This is a matter of growing importance to our democracy because policy agreements with other countries increasingly condition the lives our citizens. That role, too, could be exercised by a legitimate upper House without detracting from the exercise of functions by the House of Commons.
  Hon. Members, especially those who represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies, should remember that as decision making is devolved to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, it is important that the interests of those nations and regions are understood and directly

  631
  represented here in the United Kingdom Parliament. A properly elected upper House could reflect the constituencies of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That would help to secure the unity and sense of purpose of our country.
  Because the upper House could have an enhanced role without diminishing the House of Commons, I welcome this Bill as an important step forward in adapting our constitution to meet present requirements. There have been criticisms that the measure is too limited and fails to spell out the ultimate shape or function of an effective second Chamber. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring, echoed those criticisms this afternoon. However, I do not agree.
  The decision to proceed to reform the House of Lords in two or more stages seems to be a sensible recognition of the problems that beset and foiled earlier attempts at reform. It also recognises that the removal of the anomaly of hereditary peers is a stand-alone reform for which the Government have a clear and unmistakeable mandate. I think that the views of the public are important in determining how the upper House of Parliament should be reformed.
  The decision also recognises that, in reaching conclusions about the shape and functions of the reformed second Chamber, the public and Parliament should be consulted. The public's voice will be heard in the first place through the workings of the royal commission, whose appointment the Government have announced. Parliament will be able to express its views through the activities of the Joint Committee, which the Government have reaffirmed that they intend to appoint following the report of the royal commission. That is a very proper way in which to proceed under our incremental system.
  As far as the composition and functions of the House of Lords in the first stage of reform are concerned, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are content with the proposals set out in the Government's White Paper. After all, it is merely an interim phase and the Government have signalled their intention to move to the next stage as quickly as possible by asking the royal commission to report by the end of the year. That does not seem to conform with the actions of a Government determined to kick into the long grass a reform of such massive importance. The Government have asked the royal commission to come to a conclusion about matters of great importance with unprecedented urgency and speed.
  The Government point out properly in the White Paper that-they are seeking an analysis of the issues and not an accumulation of the views that may be found by grazing around the university campuses of this country. There is a clear need to pool the information systematically and present thought-out proposals that will commend themselves to the people of this country and to Parliament.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks—I am interested to hear his speculations—the Government did not set up the royal commission 20 months ago?
  Mr. Maclennan: When they came to office, Labour established a vast—indeed, an unprecedented—programme of constitutional reform. Some 11 Bills were
  632
  introduced and enacted in the last Session of Parliament, and the Government should be commended for moving on those fronts with unparalleled speed. The relevance of that to the House of Lords draws upon the arguments of the hon. Member for Woodspring. In the second phase of reform of the upper House, it will be necessary to take account of the will of Parliament as expressed in giving effect to the devolution measures that were enacted in the first Session. I believe that it would have been premature to have announced the royal commission prior to the enactment of those measures. However, I welcome strongly its appointment today and look forward to the announcement of the remaining members of the commission.
  As to the interim proposals, I welcome particularly the Government's proposition that the transitional House should involve proportional creations by the Liberal Democrats and other parties. That is also a reflection of Labour's undertaking given prior to the election and included not only in its manifesto but in an agreement entered into between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in the committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and by me.
  I also welcome the Government's continuing view that party appointees as life peers should more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. In seeking only parity of numbers, the Government are making it plain that it is not their intention to swamp the upper House with cronies of the Prime Minister, or of anyone else.
  I am pleased that, in the conclusion of the White Paper, the Government affirm that the process of reform is designed to give the House of Lords what is described as "a new legitimacy". In my view, such legitimacy requires a predominantly elected Chamber. Democracy is based on elections and to the extent that a legislature is comprised in some other way—however meritocratic it may be—its legitimacy is diminished. The Bill will help us enormously to advance toward that goal. If the Bill is enacted, a major constitutional objective—one that has baffled previous Labour Governments—will have been achieved. I strongly hope that the Bill enjoys the support of the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will not have escaped the House's attention that a great many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. If those who catch my eye bear in mind the needs of others and confine their remarks to a reasonably brief span, I shall be able to accommodate a great many more hon. Members than would otherwise be possible.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the debate and I shall certainly heed your instructions and be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill is important: it is part of the Labour Government's constitutional reforms to modernise and democratise the Government and to make democracy more relevant to the people of this country. It must be seen in the context of what we have done in Scotland and Wales, and of our establishment of the regional development agencies, which Labour Members hope will

  633
  soon become regional assemblies. We must also take into account the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he said, rightly, that we have to address the way in which the House of Commons functions. We are doing that through the work of the Modernisation Committee, on which I serve and whose work I want to continue.
  It is absolutely right that the Bill would abolish the rights of hereditary Lords and that the reform is to be carried out in two stages. The problem has existed for a long time and it would constitute an unacceptable delay if we were to wait for stage 2 before abolishing those rights. In his attempts to oppose the Bill, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is defending the indefensible: in the present day, the hereditary principle as it is embodied in the House of Lords is unacceptable and has to be done away with.
  People throughout the world find it incredible that, in 1999—on the edge of the 21st century and the next millennium—there are people whose right to sit and take a view on the government of our country is based on the actions of their ancestors many years ago; even though, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, those actions were often not honourable. The reasons why many titles were established are, to say the least, quite dubious, yet the people holding those titles play a role in our government and had a hand in determining the poll tax and many other wrong and totally unacceptable measures. It is right that we should tackle their position, and that we should do so in the way the Government propose.
  The review that is to take place has to cover, among many other things, the functions and composition of the upper House. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I do not think that, in proceeding in that way, the Government are seeking an unacceptable delay. It is right that reform should proceed in that way, because many factors have to be considered.
  Let us take the example of the clergy: I am a member of the Church of England, but I think that the position of the clergy in the upper House is nonsensical. The upper House contains two archbishops, a number of bishops—Durham and so on—who are there because of their importance in mediaeval times, and several other bishops who sit in the upper House according to seniority. Bishops have several ways of entering the House of Lords, but if we argue that they should continue to have seats, it is nonsense that other religions should not have similar representation. That is one of the issues that must be considered.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring talked about Cross Benchers as if they were independent. That is absolute nonsense, as anybody who has been in politics for a long time knows. I have been involved in politics for well over 40 years and I know that of those who claim to be independent or, when we knock at their door, say that the election is a secret ballot or that they do not know how they will vote, about 90 per cent. vote Conservative.
  A few months ago, I was talking to someone in my constituency who remarked how terrible it had been when we had political bishops in Liverpool and Durham, in reference to Bishop Sheppard and the previous Bishop of Durham. I pointed out that a former Bishop of Burnley, Holderness, had been a staunch Conservative, and the person replied, "Yes, but that was not political. He was
  634
  looking after the interests of the country." I am sure that Cross Benchers say that, but when they turn up, the majority of them vote Conservative. That is not in the interests of the country or of my constituents. It is time those peers had their places removed.
  We want a second Chamber. I believe in a bicameral Parliament. As we move towards a new and better democracy, which the Government are trying to bring about, we need a second Chamber that is defensible. If, in the interim, an amendment in the second Chamber proposed that 91 hereditary peers should sit, I would accept that as long as it was clear that ultimately they would not have that right. That interim period is only to give us time to find out what the review says, to give the joint committee time to proceed and to give the House time to legislate.
  The Bill is extremely welcome. The majority of people in the country believe that the second Chamber that we have at present is a nonsense and is indefensible. Let hereditary peers keep their titles; let them keep their heads; but for heaven's sake, get rid of their right to vote in today's Parliament. It is time for a change. It is time for hereditary peers to lose their vote in the other place and to gain a vote in parliamentary elections and the right to stand for election to this House if they want to have a voice in Parliament.
  5.48 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short speech in this important debate.
  The Bill, which purports to be radical and modernising is, I regret to say, a betrayal of Britain's great radical traditions. True radicalism does not just destroy; it preserves and recreates. The Leader of the House described the Bill as momentous. The Great Reform Act 1832 did not only do away with rotten boroughs but laid the foundations for what became, step by step in the 19th century, the basis of our modern democracy.
  Sadly, the Bill merely destroys what has been an essential, practical part of the workings of our upper House over the centuries without making any proposals about what to put in its place. There is no excuse for that. The Government have had 18 years to think about these matters; they knew that they would introduce this reform and, frankly, either they have not thought about it or they have funked it.
  Mr. Hope: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I put to him the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Clause 1 states:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  Do the Opposition agree or disagree with that clause?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Opposition do not support the continuation of the hereditary principle in its present form. Speaking entirely personally, I think that one of the matters that the royal commission will want to consider—as the Government wisely want to consider, and I shall throw them a bouquet in a moment—is the possibility of some hereditary peers being allowed to continue at the election of their fellows.

  635
  However, that is not Conservative policy—I speak from the Back Benches—and it is not Conservative policy to support the hereditary principle. What we demand is a one-stage reform, which is perfectly possible, whereby a sensible and carefully thought out proposal for the future is introduced at the same time as the aims of the Bill are implemented.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the essential point that an unreformed second Chamber could block proposals from this place?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Possibly. I shall deal with that in a moment.
  We Conservatives have never been against the genuine reform of the House of Lords. Conservatives have always been in favour of evolutionary reform. Indeed, as the Leader of the House will recognise, one of the ironies is that it was the radical but evolutionary Conservative reforms of Harold Macmillan's Peerage Act in 1963 that created the modern system of life peers, who look like forming the mainstay of the second Chamber, at least until a fully thought out reform is implemented.
  Although I am deeply critical of the emptiness of the Bill—the right hon. Lady puffed herself up, I say with respect, by-describing it as "exquisite simplicity"—I give the Government one cheer for seeming at last to listen, with regard to the setting up of the royal commission, even if that should have happened 18 or 20 months ago. It is a step forward which I welcome.
  A further step forward, as far as it goes, is the Government's indication that they are minded to accept an amendment that will permit 90 or 91 existing hereditary peers to continue to play a role in the transitional upper House, pending proper reform. Why should that reprieve be so limited? Is it not a fact that the Government deeply need the constructive contribution made by so many hereditary peers of all parties, and that if the Government did not accept this reform, they would have to create a large number of the existing hereditary peers as life peers in order to continue the effective work of the upper House? In seeking genuine, evolutionary reform of the second Chamber, we should bear those points in mind.
  Dr. Starkey: I am puzzled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's use of the word "evolutionary". My understanding of evolution is that it involves change by a number of steps. Is not that exactly what the Government are proposing? Can he explain his understanding of evolution? Is it rather a "big bang" approach which the Conservatives seem to be suggesting?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: To give the hon. Lady a simple answer, she is proposing to wipe out fish. She might leave mammals and birds, but she is wiping out fish. She is not allowing fish to evolve. She is simply wiping out one portion of the practical workings of our Parliament, and that is not evolution. One can never carry analogies too far, but let her reflect on that.
  Meanwhile, I shall give the Government a little more credit. I understand their desire to ensure some change. They are entitled to remind us, as the right hon. Lady did,
  636
  that since 1911 many attempts at radical reform have foundered, just as they foundered a generation ago—not because of the opposition of the upper House, she should remember, but because they were caught between the hammer of Michael Foot and the anvil of Enoch Powell, in what seemed to be an unholy alliance to defeat any reform in the late 1960s.
  Given the real role of so many hereditary peers of all parties and none, I suggest that it would be sufficient and wise in the interim to allow them to continue to play their part until proper reform is introduced.
  I shall throw out a few thoughts about the role and composition of a properly reformed upper House. We are not dealing with a blank canvas. The Government may not have thought through their proposals, but a great deal of constructive thought has been given to the matter over the past 20 years, not least by some of us who entered the House in 1979, when 18 years of continuous Conservative rule were certainly not envisaged by me, and when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) represented a real threat, with his proposals to alter the House of Lords. Likewise, some constructive proposals were offered by the committee chaired by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in the late 1970s.
  The upper House is, first, a revising Chamber. For that, we need peers who are not there just for the kudos, but who are prepared to do the work and who in future, I suggest, may have to be paid something for doing so. Secondly, the upper House provides a check on the Government of the day, giving them the opportunity to think again, as the present Government recognise.
  However, that understates the true function of the upper House. Our reforms must ensure that it continues to fulfil its primary function as a constitutional anchor, made up of a group of citizens of stature, independence and discretion, who carry the confidence of the country as a whole. If they say to the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, "Stop and think again", they must carry weight not just by their votes, but by their reputation.
  How should Members of the upper House be selected in future? The Government's interim proposal is for an appointments commission, whose recommendations the Prime Minister will undertake not to veto. I sincerely warn against so-called independent appointments commissions. They are inevitably more quasi-autonomous than autonomous, and they are not answerable to Parliament.
  If the Prime Minister's objective is to appear not to be appointing his cronies, such a commission may indeed seem to be helpful to him, but the danger is that by hiding behind such a commission, he will be divesting himself not of his power, which as Prime Minister will always remain very great, but of his responsibility and his answerability to this House.
  In another, parallel respect, the Lord Chancellor, to his credit, has moved away from the idea—much floated before the general election—of such an independent commission for the appointment of judges. The Government should think very carefully indeed before allowing the Prime Minister to escape answerability on the vital matter of appointees to the House of Lords.
  The greatest strength of our constitution is that almost every aspect of public life must in the end be answered for by a Minister or the Prime Minister, and thus effectively by the Government of the day. That is a real

  637
  sanction—for Governments, unlike so-called independent commissions, can be kicked out by the electorate. That is the democratic foundation of our constitution.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, perhaps, a little at cross-purposes with the White Paper. The independent commission, which will be appointed on Nolan principles in order to preserve its proper independence, will appoint the Cross-Bench peers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will retain responsibility for appointing any Labour peers, and has undertaken not to exercise any veto over the names put forward by the leaders of other parties.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for that clarification; I think that I understood it. My criticisms still carry weight.
  Ultimately, the Prime Minister is responsible for the system as a whole. If it goes awry, he must be seen to be answerable for it. If it goes awry in a way that distorts our constitution, the Government of the day must not be seen to be hiding behind a so-called "independent" commission.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I am at a loss to understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he saying that the independent commission should be independent of the Prime Minister or answerable to him?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I do not believe in independent commissions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, the Prime Minister will appoint the commission and members of the commission will enjoy being on it. They are inevitably under considerable indirect pressure to do roughly as they are told by the Prime Minister of the day. We should not put too much faith in independent commissions.
  Part of the upper House may well be directly elected by the electorate. I have always favoured reforms that allow part of the upper House to be elected. It will be particularly important if hereditary peers are to be done away with altogether, because it will be a way of introducing new and younger blood to the upper House. As the Government's White Paper points out, one of the difficulties and ironies is that the average age of life peers is seven years greater than that of hereditary peers, notwithstanding the large number of hereditary peers and the fact that they presumably live to old age on exactly the same statistical basis as all the rest. If we are to get new and younger blood into the upper House, we must find a method of doing it. The idea of having a proportion of elected peers has merit.
  Once elected, for whatever party, the elected peer should have a substantial period of office—at least six and perhaps nine years per election. He will have the authority of having been elected, but he must also be given a substantial measure of independence because an important feature of the upper House is that its Members, whatever their political persuasion, should be independent.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the fact that, although he refers to new peers as "he", he envisages that some might be women?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course. The House knows well enough that when we talk about people who will be elected, they will be of either sex. It depends on who stands.
  638
  Members of the upper House will have the authority of having been elected, but it is vital that they have a substantial measure of independence. Only a proportion of those who are elected should be elected at the same time. I recommend a partially rolling Chamber of a third of elected members elected every two or three years so that there is no sudden change. When a Government are on the wane, Opposition Members may be elected to the upper House as time goes by; likewise, when a new Government are elected, they will not have a clean sheet and will have to sustain momentum if their elected Members are likely to form a majority in the upper House.
  Independence and continuity are vital attributes if the upper House is to remain the constitutional anchor that has served us so well as over the centuries.
  Although Conservatives welcome genuine moves towards reform, we have to oppose the Bill because it remains deeply wrong in principle to destroy without renewal. I not only sincerely believe that criticism myself, but in conversation with people of almost any party—including less dyed-in-the-wool supporters of the present Government—it seems to find widespread support.
  In response to that criticism, the Government have at least made some moves towards speeding up the process of genuine reform and maintaining continuity with the upper House. I welcome those changes and ask the Government to think sincerely about extending them. For all the points that the Secretary of State made—they were very much jejune debating points, starting with the Earl of Dunmore flying from Tasmania, which I was amazed to see at the top of her list—it is clear that no Government have anything deep to fear from the House of Lords. In practice, Governments will be seriously defeated by the upper House only when they have lost the argument.
  Constitutional matters are not the preserve of any one party, however large its majority. May I say to the Government's credit that if they continue to listen, there remains the opportunity of constructive reform? I hope that that is what will happen.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). He and I have agreed on many issues in the past. Sadly, we are now on different sides of the House, but I can at least agree with much of what he said about phase two—eventual final reform of the House of Lords. I disagree with him, however, on the history of Conservative attitudes towards reform of the Lords. It is abundantly evident why reform should be carried out in two stages.
  In some of the speeches that I have made in the Chamber since finding myself—very happily, I might add—on the Labour Benches, I have tried to relate the subject to the reasoning that led me here. One of my first speeches was on Europe and I have made several on Ireland. We are now discussing the constitutional agenda, and Lords reform is an important part of that. I therefore welcome the opportunity to speak on the first day's debate of this subject.
  I have always been strongly in favour of reforming the House of Lords and abolishing the hereditary right to sit in that Chamber. In 1977, the first Temple-Morris effort to reform the Lords was made by way of a committee of the then Bow group, which I chaired, on Lords reform.

  639
  It was called "secundus inter pares" and in the autumn of 1977 it made proposals not unlike many of the suggestions for phase two reforms that we are discussing today.
  The proposals achieved a little publicity—they came out just before the Conservative party conference in Blackpool. When I duly went to Blackpool in October and was lingering innocently by a book stall, I heard the sound of marching feet behind me. To my horror, the then leader of the Conservative party was rapidly approaching. When she saw me she stopped, wheeled round and said abruptly, "Peter, I have read your pamphlet on the House of Lords." With that, she turned round and marched on. She did not say another word to me. I must confess that I never imagined that I had bright future under that leadership. If I needed confirmation of that in my early days in the House, I certainly got it then.
  The traditional Conservative response to Lords reform has not changed this century. Lords reform has always been on the Conservative party's agenda. The party has 'been pragmatic about it and, on occasion, has made constructive proposals, but there has always been an element of compulsion. In that context, my former party's ideas are unchanged: basically, it would like to leave the House of Lords as it is because it likes the place. On the other hand, it is pragmatic because it has always realised, since the debates leading up to the Parliament Act 1911, that the House of Lords will probably have to change one day. I am trying not to score points but to present a factual argument. There is a dilemma, which is evident today: how much should people co-operate over something that they realise might have to change one day when they would like to leave it as it is?
  Mr. Hope: My hon. Friend might be able to help me with the contradictory answers that I have received across the Chamber this afternoon. Based on his experience, can he clarify whether the Conservative party does or does not support the hereditary principle?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Judging by the election manifesto—on which, I have to say, I stood, although I was blissfully unaware of that particular element of it—it seems that we were elected on the basis of support for the hereditary principle. The party is not, with all respect, what I like to refer to as the old Conservative party. I have no doubt that, in those days, elements of it would have liked to reform the House of Lords. I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) will address the House tomorrow and it will be particularly interesting to hear what he has to say.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am most grateful to my former hon. Friend for giving way. Does not he remember that, in 1984, I introduced a Bill to reduce the number of hereditary peers to 200? He, and the Leader of the House, voted against it.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I do not like half-hearted reform. I have no doubt that I chose the right course of action by marching into the Lobby firmly to encourage my former hon. Friend to be slightly bolder in his efforts. I am very sad, because he now has a wonderful opportunity to make a constructive contribution.
  640
  The Government's approach has always been consensual. We could have achieved one-passage reform of the House of Lords only if my former party had taken a constructive view from the outset of this Parliament, when possibilities were being discussed. We could have put reform through in one measure, but it has been patently clear from the various perambulations of the Conservative party that—as in so many other things, I fear—it cannot quite make up its mind.
  I want to get away from the present, to quote from the admirable report by Lord Home and to finish my point about the fact that the Conservative party's basic attitude has been unchanged throughout this century. The element of compulsion—the dilemma—began in the debates on the Parliament Act 1911. A footnote on page 30 of Lord Home's report quotes A. J. Balfour, no less. What he said is unchanged:
  "I dislike the whole thing. I would like to leave things as they are if we could. I don't believe you can make a better House. But that is not the question. The question is: can you make a Second Chamber strong enough to stand and resist assault? Can you make such changes as will enable our men to fight with success in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Scotland against single-chamber government? I don't think we can in our democratic days unless you admit an elective element".
  That was way back in 1910. That comment is typical: once driven towards reform—because people cannot defend the indefensible—the party gets constructive.
  It is inevitable that there will be reform in the end, but unfortunately, once the immediate threat of abolition—the sword of Damocles—and, in particular, the threat of a unicameral Parliament are withdrawn, the measure of co-operation drops—and drops at the first opportunity that the Conservative party has. I repeat that that is a major reason for the justification of the two-stage sequence for reform. We must concentrate on reform for the future; we must not spend hour after hour, day after day—and even Session after Session—arguing about the past.
  That leads me to Lord Home's report, to which I want to refer in a little more detail. With all due deference to the private Member's Bill of my former hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), it is a last major effort within the Conservative party at addressing reform of the House of Lords. The Conservative review committee's attempt at reform in 1978—which took place a year after my first attempt—is referred to in the White Paper, at page 49. The motivation for Lord Home's report was exactly the same—fear of abolition and fear of the possibility of a unicameral Parliament as part of the abolition—but it was clearly pro-reform and favoured a stronger and more legitimate second Chamber.
  The quality of the report's findings mark it out as very worthy indeed. Sadly, however, the reaction of the then leader of the Conservative party—when Leader of the Opposition in 1977—to Lord Home's report and to my humble efforts, which argued for much the same thing as he argued for in his far more illustrious report; and her reaction to these efforts when in power, made it patently clear that, once the threat of reform of the House of Lords and the element of compulsion were no longer present, co-operation would be dropped.
  Lord Home chaired the committee and its report is relevant to the debate and to the royal commission, and for the Government. It recommended a mixed House of Lords, part elected and part nominated; the abolition of

  641
  the hereditary right to sit; elections under regional proportional representation, particularly if the electoral system for the European Parliament went in that direction, as it now has, so that recommendation is still very much alive; salaried Members, called Lords of Parliament; and separation of the awarding and carrying of titles from the legislature.
  The background was set out for possible reform, but that did not take place. The party remained pragmatic—at least in part, if not in the whole—because an essentially pragmatic act incurred the displeasure of the present Leader of the Opposition: directed at Lord Cranborne, who created what I refer to as the Cranborne arrangement.
  I shall make specific points about the second stage of reform—for the royal commission, primarily, but also for the House to consider.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out, helpfully, how much constructive thought came from Conservative Members back in 1978. Does not that point up the message that I am trying to get across to the Government? Our complaint is not that there will be reform, but that there should be reform in a single stage, not in two stages. The Government have quite enough power to say, "Okay, if you haven't achieved reform in three years, we will have our way." With the presence of that sword of Damocles, is there not an opportunity to achieve constructive reform in a single stage?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Leader of the Opposition I would treat what he says with more credibility. I agree with the sentiment that he expresses, but the evidence was not present in the past and it is certainly not present in the activities of the current leadership and of Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. Such evidence has never been present in this Parliament. The party cannot agree; indeed, that is self-evident from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Once more, then I must get on.
  Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, in any other context, I would also refer to as my friend.
  I want to pick up a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, which ties in. There has been opposition from Conservative Members since the start of this Parliament, which makes, it is said, single-stage reform impossible. Surely, since the start of this Parliament, we have never been told by anyone—either through the setting up of a royal commission or the Government expressing a view—how the total package might look. Therefore we have never been able to comment on it, contribute to it or agree it.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: That really is not good enough. The former Leader of the House of Lords was in constant conversation—often of a prandial nature—with the then leader of the Conservatives in the Lords. The two knew each other extremely well. Like many other hon. Members, I know both the people involved. It was made clear again and again that the Opposition could have a
  642
  consensual approach. It was patently obvious that they did not want to take such an approach. Eventually, however, we had the Cranborne arrangement, which, I am afraid to say, we would not have had were it not for the compulsion of the moment. It was only when he was compelled to give in that he did so, and the Government reasonably accepted the arrangement.
  I should like to make some specific points about the second stage of the reform. Like Lord Home, I believe that there should be a mixed House of Lords. That will almost certainly be the inevitable outcome of any reform. I suggest 70 per cent. elected and 30 per cent. non-elected. We should also consider having a third of members appointed, a third elected by proportional representation under a regional list, and a third elected by colleges of interest.
  The proposal for some members to be elected by colleges of interest always crops up, but is usually dropped because it is considered to be too complicated to arrange and agree the colleges. However, the Irish Senate has such a system. The flaw in its system—with which I have had a lot to do—is not the colleges of interest but the electorate, because the electorate comprises Members of the Dail and members of local authorities. It is the most political electorate around, and that is why the Irish Senate is not what it was intended to be.
  Bishops and Law Lords should not sit in the House of Lords. Bishops and representatives of other religious denominations could be colleges of interest in their own right. The Law Lords would continue to sit in the Privy Council. I am sure that, whatever we do, there will be too many lawyers in the upper House, so we do not need to send people there to exercise judicial office.
  I can knock the question of dual mandates on the head. When we created the system for the first elections to the European Parliament, many people said that we must have dual mandates. Committees said how marvellous it would be for these lovely MEPs to come and tell us what was going on. When all bar one of those who achieved a dual mandate did not last more than one Parliament before, virtually to a man, they came back here, it rapidly became apparent that dual mandates would not work because MEPs had a lot to do. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly will have plenty to do, but they could be colleges of interest to elect representatives to a reformed upper House. They could also be given a right of audience, as the European Parliament gives visiting Ministers. I see no reason for the second Chamber to be limited to its membership.
  As for the style and title, the other place should be a separate body, as Lord Home recommended. If it keeps the name House of Lords, members could be referred to as Lord with their surname while in the Lords, and otherwise as MLs, just as we are referred to as MPs. That is a fair solution. It would be nice to keep the name House of Lords for romantic reasons, if for no other. I would not defend that point of view to the end, but the names House of Commons and House of Lords have a certain ring to them. We should not worry about the name, but rather devise a modern arrangement that we can live with in the next millennium.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the problem that we face is the overweening power of

  643
  the Executive. It is to the reform of both Houses that we should address ourselves, and not merely to a minor reform of the House of Lords. The power of the Executive that the House has to endure is far too great—Labour Members are enduring it now, as Members on the Conservative Back Benches endured it for 18 years. This measure will enhance that Executive power, because it will add considerably—directly or indirectly—to the Prime Minister's powers of patronage.
  Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman said that clause 1 is a minor reform of the House of Lords. Does his party support that clause, which states:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage"?
  Does the hon. Gentleman support or oppose that clause?
  Mr. Wells: I cannot speak for my party—I am not the spokesman on these issues—but I shall give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. I agree with the statement in clause 1. I do not believe that membership of the upper House should be based on hereditary principles. In all his questions, the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish the difference between supporting the hereditary principle and deciding the membership of the House of Lords. I do not believe that it should be decided on the hereditary principle, and I hope that that is clear enough for the hon. Gentleman to understand.
  Both Houses of Parliament have fallen in the public's esteem in the past 40 or 50 years. That should worry both Houses considerably, especially the House of Commons. It is essential to reform both the House of Lords and the House of Commons if we are to restore public respect for this vital instrument of democracy.
  If we are to go down the path of reform, we should start with the traditional approach to which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) alluded. We should call together all parties and peoples in the House—perhaps under the chairmanship of the Speaker, a Speaker's conference—to decide how reform should take place.
  One of the first issues to consider would be the entitlement of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. I said that that was not a major point, because if we abolished the hereditary principle, we would not change the constitution, except that we would put the House of Lords much more in the power of the serving Prime Minister, and would make it a party political machine supporting the Government in power.
  What would happen after successive Prime Ministers had appointed their appointees to the House of Lords? Presumably, it would have a large number of members, unless there was a retirement provision or they were appointed for a set period. The consequences of the Government's proposal are not clear. We do not know what will happen at stage 2, what the royal commission will decide and what further legislation will be required.
  What will happen once we have tinkered with the extraordinary system in the House of Lords? No one would have invented it: it is a crazy system. If we take one of the bricks from the wall, the whole thing will tumble down. That is why we must have a discussion on what we mean by reform and what we want from it.
  644
  I should like the House to consider carefully whether we should straightforwardly abolish the House of Lords and have no second Chamber. In the Commonwealth, the New Zealand Parliament abolished its second Chamber 40 years ago. It has proceeded comfortably and well without a second, revising Chamber. That may be the simplest solution for us all. If we did that, we would have to reform this place.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wells: No, I want to keep to Mr. Deputy Speaker's time limit, so I cannot take the hon. Lady's intervention.
  If we abolished the second Chamber completely, we would have the simplest solution of all; but it would require major reform of our proceedings in the House of Commons. Indeed, part of this process will involve reform of the House of Commons in any event. I shall be referring to some of the respects in which we must do a great deal better in future.
  If, however, the House of Lords is to have an elected element—as suggested by both the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris)—it will gain democratic credibility, and will demand to be given power. It would, surely, be possible to allocate some powers to the House of Commons, and some to the second House. The second House, for example, could be given responsibility for many matters that are currently in the gift of the Crown—Crown privileges, particularly in respect of foreign affairs and treaties. That would accord with what happens in the United States Congress, which has considerable powers in that regard. As the House will know, it refused to agree to the treaty of Versailles after the first world war, which was, possibly, one of the reasons for the second world war. It interviews all those appointed to ambassadorial posts, and the Senate's approval is needed before such appointments are made.
  Indeed, the question of appointments—which was raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—is extremely important. The Executive has far too much power over appointments to quangos, and to other bodies that spend huge amounts of public money. Certainly, such appointments should not be allowed without parliamentary supervision.
  Those, then, are powers that could be divided between the two Houses; but do hon. Members imagine that the House of Commons will give up the power over the Executive that it currently has? Had we passed a motion opposing the signing of the Maastricht treaty, for example, the Government would have had to retract their signature, or they would not have been able to continue to exist. My proposal therefore would mean this House giving up power to the new, elected House of Lords.
  I do not believe that we shall get through the House of Commons any proposal that would empower the House of Lords—the upper House, the second Chamber or whatever we want to call it—to gainsay or second-guess the elected Chamber here. We would not secure that kind of reform, and that suggests that the best way forward may indeed be a single-Chamber Government. If we are to have a single-Chamber Government, we must take over, and call to account, the powers of Crown privilege and appointment held by the Executive; but we ought also to take powers to control the Government's power

  645
  to borrow. The House of Commons has never been able to do that, which over the years has got us into a huge amount of trouble economically. That has led to rampant inflation, mainly under Labour Governments.
  We would also have to include European affairs when considering how to deal with a reformed House. Currently, we handle European affairs very badly, although we probably handle them better than most European Union Parliaments—with the exception of the Danish Parliament. I agree that Prime Ministers, and Ministers generally, should not go to the European Council and make agreements on our behalf without authorisation from the Parliaments that they represent. I think it monstrous, for example, that the monetary union proposals presented to the European Union were agreed by two leaders, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, with no reference to their parties, their Parliaments or their people. That, surely, is the kind of power that we should give reformed Houses of Parliament.
  I feel that, when the European Scrutiny Committee and European Standing Committees A and B do not think that Ministers should go to Europe and agree, on behalf of this country, legislation passed by Europe, that should be binding on the Government. In such circumstances, this House of Parliament does not agree. It should have the power not to agree, and Ministers should have to withhold their agreement. I know that they will not like that, because they will not be able to wheel and deal. So be it—and so much the better for the supremacy of Parliament.
  Scotland is to have a national Parliament, Northern Ireland and Wales are to have Assemblies, and presumably we shall eventually have regional government of some kind in England. We shall need representation of those powerful regional bodies in this place. That could be the basis of a second Chamber, but those bodies would also have to be represented, in some way, in this House. I am rather attracted to the proposal in the White Paper that we should find a place for a Committee—a Grand Committee, or a European Committee—that MEPs would not only be able to attend, but be expected to attend. They would have a duty to attend. It is important for us to understand increasingly what is going on in Europe, and to be able to influence MEPs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to the power of the judiciary, which is becoming greater and greater under the judicial review procedure. Under the human rights measures that we have enacted, the judiciary is increasingly beginning to make the laws of this country, including administrative law. It is usurping the powers of Parliament and the House of Commons.
  Another worry is caused by the fact that, on many occasions, we conduct our business in an absurdly childlike manner. Everyone is aware, from BBC radio and television, of the appalling spectacle that we present when we call the Prime Minister to account at Prime Minister's Question Time, which degrades the House and diminishes those who take part. We need to find an adult, sensible way in which we can hold our Prime Minister to account, with papers in front of us—hold him to account realistically and effectively. We must develop such techniques.
  I consider that our Select Committees have been a success since 1979, and that we should give them more powers: greater powers to command debate on the Floor
  646
  of the House, and, indeed, powers to bind the Government to abide by the results of debate here. That would truly empower the Select Committees, which do a great deal of work and generally achieve consensus in their recommendations. We should possibly establish a Grand Committee to bring the Prime Minister to account in an orderly manner. It could be televised, but, again, in a sensible and adult fashion.
  We have a great deal of reform to consider, but the Bill constitutes a way of avoiding such consideration. It is a way of enabling the Executive to increase its power, and of reducing respect for the House. A proper, sensible attempt should be made to secure consensus among the parties. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Leominster, that has never been on offer to the Conservative party, although I understand that it has been on offer to the Liberal Democrats. We need to consider all these issues in a proper, orderly, responsible manner.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I find it difficult to listen to some of the speeches from Conservative Members, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), because they try to defend the indefensible. We have the spectacle of adversarial politics at its worst, because no one in the entire world could possibly defend the hereditary principle.
  The Bill is not before time. Hereditary peers represent no one other than themselves. The whole principle is a denial of the basic democratic principle of equal citizenship. In 1701, Daniel Defoe put it succinctly when he said of the membership of the House of Lords:
  "Great families of yesterday we show,
  And lords whose parents were the Lord knows who."
  Hereditary peers are responsible to no one, but they are overwhelmingly Tory politically; there can be no argument about that. They are partial in throwing their weight against Labour and Liberal Governments. After the Parliament Act 1911, two Bills of the Liberal Government—the Welsh Church Bill and the Home Rule Bill for Ireland—were thrown out by the House of Lords. I quote the playwright Tom Stoppard, who said that the House of Lords exercises
  "responsibility without power, the prerogative of the eunuch throughout the ages."
  It is said that a second Chamber has three main functions: to delay hasty legislation, to act as a revising Chamber, and to ease the burdens on the House of Commons. The last function will be largely lifted as a result of devolution. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford: I hope that devolution will include the English regions.
  The White Paper says:
  "Britain needs a two-chamber legislature",
  but does it? I question that. I agreed with an enormous amount of what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said about reform of the Houses of Parliament; I will not go over all that he said, but I found myself agreeing with much of it. I ask the Government to put before the royal commission an option that is not mentioned in the White Paper: not having a second Chamber at all.

  647
  Let us look at the possible composition of the second Chamber if it were elected. If it were elected simultaneously with the House of Commons, it would merely duplicate the membership of the House of Commons. People might say, "Elect it under a different system," but the arguments would then be about which system was the more democratic. However, if it were elected at different times from the House of Commons, doubts would be created about which was the more legitimate Chamber and the efficiency of the Executive would be reduced. Sometimes we may want to take that approach if we think that the Executive is too powerful, but having a second Chamber means taking Ministers away from more useful business.
  If the second Chamber were purely nominated, it would lack the authority of a popular Chamber. It would be filled, irrespective of who the Prime Minister was, and the independent commission would not exist for ever, with placemen and women. If it were hostile to the Government, an indirectly elected Chamber could be destructive. If it were favourable to the Government, it would be superfluous.
  One argument is—my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) referred to it—that a second Chamber could be based on members of trades and professions, as a large section of the Irish Senate is. It could be, as they say, a House of experts, but is that really what we want? Do not forget that all those experts would be willing and able to talk on any subject in the House of Lords, senate, or whatever we like to call the second Chamber, irrespective of their experience.
  If a person is elected to represent doctors, what weight could be given to the views that he or she expresses on, say, the euro? The House of Lords contains many notable lawyers. Lord Denning has been notable as a judge, but does that make his opinion on, say, the strategic defence review significant? Let us look at the function of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hawkins: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's choice of example. Anyone who knows the family history of Lord Denning, whose 100th birthday we were all glad to celebrate recently, knows that one of his brothers was a general and another was an admiral, so he might have had quite a lot to say about the strategic defence review.
  Mr. Wareing: Perhaps, but what Lord Denning has to say may not be significant.
  Let us look at the question of delaying legislation. On the whole, legislation is not rushed. People talk about rushing legislation, but it is not rushed. Most of the important measures that have come before the House of Commons have emanated from ideas that have been debated over long periods.
  Take, for example, devolution for Scotland. That has been argued about for decades. Some Scottish Members would probably argue that it has been debated ever since Culloden and that we are only just coming around to it. No one could say that that has been rushed.
  When the nationalisation legislation was pushed through by the post-war Labour Government, it had been debated for decades. Even Winston Churchill had argued in 1909 for the nationalisation of the railways. It was not until 1947 that that came about.
  648
  I am pleased that the present Government are the first to legislate in favour of the minimum wage, but economists and others, including trade unionists, have argued and debated the whys and wherefores of the minimum wage for a very long period. I am sorry that we have had to wait until this Labour Government for it to make its way on to the statute book.
  No one can say that that reform of the House of Lords has been rushed. It was debated after the 1909 Budget. We had the Parliament Act 1911. It took another seven years to get the Bryce report, with its complicated ideas for reform of the second Chamber. It was debated again in 1949 after the Tory Government held up the Bill to nationalise steel: the Parliament Bill was introduced in 1949 to reduce the delaying powers. Again, we had debates in 1968 about the reform of the House of Lords, which was scuppered largely—perhaps justifiably in view of the evidence at the time—by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. We now have the debate yet again.
  Legislation is not rushed. It is the length of time that has been taken to act on ideas, not hastiness in acting on them, that has frustrated our electors. They say, "Get on with it. If you believe in something, go ahead with the legislation."
  We are told that we need a second Chamber to revise, but revision is not best done by a second Chamber that is composed in the ways that I have mentioned. Revision is best done—as the Government are doing—by consulting before legislation is introduced.
  Mr. Damian Green: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that legislation is best introduced after consulting. It therefore seems perverse that he is supporting the House of Lords Bill just as a royal commission is being established to consult on it.
  Mr. Wareing: I have already made it clear that it has taken the House a long time to reach the point of debating a Bill abolishing the legislative rights of hereditary peers. The idea of abolishing those rights is not new; it goes back an awfully long way. The hon. Gentleman himself has probably, at some time, belonged to a debating society that debated the hereditary principle. Nevertheless, this is the first occasion on which the House has considered legislation expressing a determination to abolish those rights—something that any rational person should have expected Parliament to do many, many years ago.
  There are other ways in which the revisory process may be performed. Advisory bodies, for example, surround the Executive and could perform such a function. If there is a legislative problem—where revision is necessary because of a drafting problem—parliamentary counsel would be available to deal with it. Why do we have parliamentary counsel, if not to advise on drafting legislation?
  If there is a failure of substance in legislation, the best way of dealing with it would be by establishing working commissions, comprising members of appropriate trades, professions or interests. Such a commission could be established to consider each Bill.
  When the Labour party was in opposition, and Mrs. Thatcher's Government was introducing legislation—such as the Health and Medicines Bill in 1988—we, like other Oppositions before us, consulted the British Medical Association, the Royal College

  649
  of Nursing, trade unions and dentists' professional organisations. In future, such consultation could be performed in a much more formalised manner.
  A dentist is not required in a second Chamber to debate foreign policy. However, in working commissions, dentists could debate parliamentary business, give advice and point out the difficulties and potholes on the pathway to legislation.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: They could also point out the cavities.
  Mr. Wareing: I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years, and I appreciate his sense of humour.
  A second Chamber is not more likely than the first Chamber to reflect the popular will. Moreover, I suggest that it is not necessarily suitable—it is not suitable—for a revising Chamber to act efficiently, so that it assists the Government and advises the House of Commons. I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford on strengthening Select Committees. Although one could argue about how to strengthen them, doing so would certainly be a means of creating greater parliamentary control over the Executive, which I believe is necessary.
  I make only one concession to those who argue in favour of a different type of second Chamber. A different Chamber may be required if the United Kingdom is to have a federal constitution—perhaps after we establish English regions, and after the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly are well under way. Perhaps we will have to establish such a Chamber then, when so many of the important social services have been devolved to the assemblies.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing rose—
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, as I think that she asked first.
  Mrs. Laing: Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing, most eloquently, for a total reform of Parliament itself? As he just said, we now have devolution and the opportunity—although Opposition Members do not want it—for regional assemblies. Does he therefore agree that, rather than debating the short Bill before us, which deals with only one aspect—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. As I have said before, an intervention is not an opportunity to make a speech.
  Mr. Wareing: I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) with pleasure. I honestly believe that the Bill is necessary now. It is necessary if only to ensure that the Government—who were elected with a large majority, in 1997—have a reasonable chance of having their legislation passed in the other place.
  I see no justification for maintaining the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Grieve: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying—he wants the hereditary element in the House of
  650
  Lords to go, regardless. However, in his very thoughtful speech, I should be very interested to hear his views on the timetable, after the Lords go, to deal with the issues that he is raising today. Those issues will not be dealt with.
  Mr. Wareing: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, they are being dealt with. The Government have published a White Paper, which is there for us to read and to ask questions on. Today's debate will not be the only opportunity for us to raise the issues between now and publication of the royal commission's report, at the end of 1999.
  If we move towards a federal Britain, my prescription—it is outlined in the White Paper; I shall not go into the details now—is typified by the Bundesrat, in the Federal Republic of Germany.
  Currently—in this Bill—we have to deal with the House of Lords. I believe that the Lords spend enormous amounts of time in wasteful debate. Although the House of Lords deals with legislation, an occasional glance at its Annunciator shows that it is acting as a debating society. I have no argument with hereditary peers taking part in a debating society, but they do not have to use one of the Chambers of Parliament to do so.
  The House of Lords ties up Ministers' time, which could be better used in other ways. [Interruption.] Ministers will admit that I do not often sympathise with them in the work that they do. However, the time that they spend answering questions in the House of Lords, and dealing in this place with amendments from the other place, could be better spent.
  The House of Lords is able also to defy the electors.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept Opposition Members' view that, when Ministers are questioned in the Chamber of a House of Parliament, they are being held to account for the work that they do? Should not Ministers—the Executive—be held to account by Parliament? Is that not why we are here?
  Mr. Wareing: Yes, they should be held to account. Ministers should be held to account by the elected Chamber—the House of Commons—and by Members of the elected Chamber serving on Select Committees. Moreover, I believe that the Prime Minister should have to attend Select Committees if called upon to do so. Ex-Prime Ministers should also have to attend when called. Baroness Thatcher refused to attend the Foreign Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament when we were debating the scandal of the Pergau dam. The Prime Minister should be called to account.
  The late Baroness Stocks once described the House of Lords as a perfect eventide home. It is time to recommend its closure.
  7 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The difficulty for the Conservatives is that few of us would start from here. That is always a problem in such debates. It is clear from what a lot of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have already said that we would not have abolished the existing House of Lords because we believe that it performs a useful and robustly independent legislative role. Neither would we have set up devolved Assemblies and Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, and

  651
  perhaps in Northern Ireland. However, we have to face the reality that such developments are occurring. In Scotland and Wales, they are well under way and we now have the Government's proposals for the House of Lords. We have to react to what the Government are doing and produce our ideas in the light of that.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: How fiercely independent does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the House of Lords is when 50 per cent. of all Divisions in the Lords during the life of the previous Labour Government resulted in defeat for the Government, whereas during the 18 years of Tory rule, only about 5 per cent. of House of Lords Divisions resulted in Government defeats?
  Mr. Forth: That might suggest that our legislation was better than Labour's. The hon. Gentleman has a point, but the fact that the bulk of the upper House has been hereditary has, in a peculiar way, made it independent by definition. Life peers certainly cannot be said to be independent.
  Mr. Hope: Half the hereditary peers in the House of Lords take the Conservative Whip, which hardly makes them independent. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question that I have asked other Conservatives: does he support clause 1, which abolishes the hereditary principle? What is the Conservative party's position on the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: I support clause 1. I am going to give my views in a moment, but first I should like to set the scene by quoting myself, which I always find pleasurable and productive. On 20 January—this is quite recent, so it is fresh in my memory—I asked the Leader of the House:
  "As the main criticisms that the Government are making of the House of Lords appear to be that it is undemocratic, unrepresentative and unaccountable, can the Leader of the House guarantee that at the end of the process, the second Chamber will emerge as democratic, representative and accountable?"
  To my delight and pleasure, the right hon. Lady answered:
  "The right hon. Gentleman identifies our case accurately. The House of Lords is uniquely undemocratic, unrepresentative and unaccountable."—[Official Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 919.]
  There is a surprising amount of common ground on which I would like to build. That is a useful starting point, which goes some way towards answering the question of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope).
  We already have the beginnings of the process of devolved representation and legislation in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. The process of change of the upper House is already well under way. I regret that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who advocated a single Chamber. I have taken it as axiomatic that a legislature should have two Chambers for checks and balances and revisionary purposes. I am uneasy about a unicameral approach, even though our friends in New Zealand have gone down that path.
  652
  We know that they have bitterly regretted some recent developments, so I am not sure that we should regard what they do as a good example.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key issue is the size of the country concerned? A unicameral system may work well in a small country such as Denmark or New Zealand, but applying the principle to a country of 60 million people is a different matter.
  Mr. Forth: That is a powerful point that we would do well to bear in mind.
  We are faced with the reality of devolution and the perceived need—now broadly accepted—to change the nature of the upper House. Picking up on what the hon. Member for West Derby said, I have become an advocate of an English Parliament in response to the system that the Government have set up in Scotland and Wales. Just over a year ago, we embarked on the argument that, in fairness and for good administrative and legislative purposes, it is proper that the English people should be asked what they want, which has not yet happened. If they agree, they should be given their own legislature. That would answer the West Lothian question and would render regional assemblies inappropriate and unnecessary.
  If we accept that that is a legitimate approach—I realise that not everyone does—it is easy and essential to move on and look at the role and functions of what would then be a federal Parliament, when the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish were dealing with their domestic affairs through their new elected and accountable Assemblies. That would necessarily lead to a dramatically reduced House of Commons, dealing with foreign affairs, defence and overall economic matters.
  To complement that, we should have a revised upper House consisting of 87 elected members. I do not pick the number 87 out of thin air. That is the current number of European constituencies. There would be no need for a lengthy and complicated study by the boundary commission. We have a ready-made electoral map on which an elected upper Chamber could be based. We could have multiples of 87, but I would feel comfortable with 87. The members should be elected for six-year terms, with one third of them being elected every two years. That would give the second Chamber a separate political legitimacy from the House of Commons. It would also allow the electorate the opportunity to express a view during the term of a Government, which would be a useful and necessary political device.
  I accept that this is new political territory, but the Government have set in train a process that gives us not only the opportunity, but the obligation to look seriously at the way in which our country is run and our legislation is developed. What I have said may be somewhat radical, but this is the opportunity for a radical approach. The Government have already been radical with their measures for Scotland. They are already denying the people of England the say that they should have in all this. They are asking us to review the role, functions and nature of the upper Chamber, which surely also involves considering what the House of Commons does.
  If we are considering a different sort of representation at English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish level, and a different kind of upper Chamber, accepting—however reluctantly—that the basis on which the House of Lords

  653
  has operated for 1,000 years can no longer continue, surely the Government and the royal commission will accept that this is an opportunity to look in the round at how we govern and legislate, and to review our accountability and representativeness. I do not accept that a unicameral approach would give such legitimacy. I have no fear, as a member of this House for the time being, that a new, powerful, differently accountable and representative upper Chamber would necessarily pose a threat to the House of Commons. It should complement what the House of Commons does and its accountability. I believe that a self-confident Government should have no fear of a new-style, legitimate, elected and accountable upper Chamber—something that surely flows from what the Leader of the House said a few days ago.
  Finally, I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well and has, on occasion, been radically and robustly independent from both the Executive and the legislature in the US. Again, we would have nothing to fear from that. Indeed, some recent and somewhat regrettable events have demonstrated that our own supreme judiciary is nothing of which we need be desperately proud—it has its faults and failings. I would have thought that something akin to the US Supreme Court would be a necessary adjunct to an elected upper Chamber.
  We must take the opportunity given to us by the Government—largely by accident—to look properly and in the round at what we are doing about our government and our legislative procedures. I hope that we do that radically and responsibly, and give ourselves and our people a properly thought-through, balanced and functioning system of legislation.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: If the Conservative party follows the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it will end up as an English nationalist party—which would be a sad end for a once-great party.
  The main message that I have taken from Conservative speeches today—particularly that of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—is that the Conservative party intends to go into the next general election as the only party in Britain which supports the right of hereditary peers, wherever they may live in the world, to vote in our legislature.
  Mr. Letwin: That is not true.
  Mr. Soley: I invite the hon. Gentleman to say categorically and unequivocally that the Conservative party will oppose the right of hereditary peers to vote in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Letwin: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's observation—I cannot for the life of me imagine how he got that idea. Does he agree that the Government are proposing, and will accept, that hereditary peers should continue in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Soley: No. The proposal is clear. For a limited period, 10 per cent. will continue to have the right to vote. I asked the hon. Gentleman a question that he has not
  654
  answered. Does the Conservative party intend to oppose the right of hereditary peers to vote in the House of Lords—yes or no?
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to do that, the Conservative party would have to vote against an amendment to keep hereditary peers that the Government would be supporting?
  Mr. Soley: This is no time for wriggling. Is the Conservative party in favour of hereditary peers having a vote in the House of Lords, as a second Chamber, in the future? The hon. Gentleman's co-defendant on the Front Bench—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman's supporter on the Front Bench, rather—the hon. Member for Woodspring—avoided that question.
  As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said a few moments ago, the Conservatives say that they would not have started from here. The point is that we are starting from here because this is where the previous Government left us; it is, therefore, difficult to start from anywhere else. It is simple to express whether one thinks that hereditary peers should have the right to vote in the House of Lords. I will give the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) one last chance to answer that question, yes or no. The people of Britain have a right to know, and they need to know soon.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me one last chance, although it took him rather a long time to do so. Will he accept this perfectly clear statement from the Opposition; that there is not a chance in hell of the Opposition proposing the resurrection of more hereditary peers than will already have been put in that House by the Government? In the second phase—if the Government allow a second phase—the Opposition would not dream of proposing the hereditary principle as a way forward. Is that clear enough for the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Soley: No, it is not. The question that the hon. Gentleman has to answer is this; if the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a Tory Government, would he be proposing the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to vote in the House of Lords? The answer, as we all know, is a resounding no. It is a resounding no because the hereditary peers have given the Tory party a built-in majority for more years than many of us care to remember.
  I enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I always do—not least because of his historical grasp. However, he gave one or two examples that must be dealt with. He referred to a US-type system. I have never thought of my right hon. Friend as the greatest supporter of the US system, and there is a lot that is wrong with the US constitution.
  My right hon. Friend suggested that it was a good thing that the Senate and the Republicans could hold the President over a barrel, as they are doing now. However, that is not a good example of why we should have an elected second Chamber—it is a profoundly bad one. Everyone knows that the battle in which the President is engaged in the US has nothing to do with the political, economic or social problems facing the US. It has everything to do with the fact that the Republican party could not beat a Democratic President on two occasions and seeks to remove him from office because it cannot win.

  655
  A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield gave the Levellers as another example. I am a great supporter of the Levellers, and, in some respects, that important part of history set the standards for democracy here and elsewhere. The problem with the Levellers was that because of the way in which they carried through their policy in a situation that was fraught with difficulties, we ended up with the only period of dictatorship that this country has ever known. Again, that is not a good example.
  A far better example from our history concerns Britain's writing of large parts, if not most, of the constitution of what was then West Germany after the second world war. The reason we put into that constitution an indirectly elected part of the Chamber was precisely to stop a centralising Government taking power again. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that the only democratic proposal is an elected second Chamber must be aware that there are profound dangers in that, as historical examples show.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends who follow that line ought to take into account the fact that when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she had no hesitation in destroying local government when she did not think that she could win the elections. An elected second Chamber—particularly one elected at the same time as this House—would do exactly the same. In the German constitution, we built in the safeguard of an indirect part of the Chamber.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bundesrat is, in fact, anything but independent, and furthermore that it is the biggest bunch of fat cats that has been seen this side of the Alamo?
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that the Bundesbank has been one of the most successful organisations in Europe. Local government has been represented on the board of the Bundesbank, which is why regional economic development in Germany has been much more successful than here.
  I wish to refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We should have a sense of history in a debate such as this. I compliment my right hon. Friend on having the good fortune to be the person who modernises Britain's constitution by introducing this fundamental reform of the House of Lords. It is profoundly important, and it is right that in this debate, we do not lose our sense of historical perspective.
  Mr. Brooke: For the benefit of those who are reading this debate centuries from now, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to the Bundesrat, and that his answer was in the context of the Bundesbank.
  Mr. Soley: If that is what he said, I entirely accept that. I answered in the context of the Bundesbank in my second example, because I thought that that is what the hon. Gentleman said. Either way, in the political and economic structure of West Germany—[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but we should take pride in the fact that we wrote that constitution and set up much of the
  656
  economic structure. If we recognised what we did for the Germans, with their full co-operation, we might recognise that lessons could be learnt from what we did then. We do not necessarily need to go back to 1911 or the 1640s, because we have had a good record more recently.
  Mr. Maclennan: I follow and to some extent support what the hon. Gentleman has said about our wisdom in respect of the German constitution. Does the hon. Gentleman support what we did to the voting system for West Germany?
  Mr. Soley: Not necessarily. In local government, much can be said for a different type of voting system, but there are horses for courses.
  The importance of our current proposals is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said earlier, that we are trying to modernise the British constitution, not just in one area—the House of Lords—but through devolution to Scotland, Wales, London and, I hope, the English regions. I am confident that this Government will radically reform the British constitution.
  The special tragedy of the Conservatives—their party used to take pride in the British constitution—is that they let it freeze in the 20th century and made no significant changes to it. They believed that it kept them in power, and to some extent it did. The one constitutional change they did make, they now tell us that they did not intend—I refer to the Single European Act, which removed some power from the House of Commons and made it indirectly controlled through the Council of Ministers.
  Britain has the advantage of having an unwritten constitution, although some people disagree that that is an advantage. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) might prefer a written constitution. The advantage of an unwritten constitution is that it can continually evolve. The United States is having difficulty changing its written constitution as it now needs to. However, because we did not change our constitution in the 20th century, it has become redundant in many areas and is seen by many people as irrelevant to our needs.
  The message about reform today is that it is necessary to deliver the right economic and social policies that the country needs. We are not doing this just for the sake of reform or even because the principle of hereditary voting is wrong. We are doing it because we need efficient, democratic government—and that means reform. That also means that we need the first stage reform, because that is where reform has been blocked in the past. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the failure of reform in the 1960s. That happened because people, including some Labour Members, fell for the Conservative argument that we had to change everything or nothing. That is a fatal mistake which we must not make now.
  We want the first stage reform now. It has been argued that the Bill will lead to a neutered second Chamber, but the Conservatives will still have a majority. It is worth reminding the House of the long-term aims of the Government, which were spelt out in the White Paper:
  "The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered."
  It also states:
  "No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords."

  657
  That gives the lie to the argument that the Bill is an attempt to install a Labour majority in the House of Lords. We will not have a majority in the House of Lords once the Bill becomes law and we will not be able to create such a majority artificially, because of the independent appointments system. We will then move on to the second stage, and debate on the form it should take will continue. Now, we must focus on the first stage.
  It is time to be brave and to recognise that reform of the House of Lords is essential. The hereditary principle is a nonsense. People talk about the hereditary vine, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield produced a phial of blood to show that the hereditary principle is not always entirely pure. Occasionally, as the nobles wandered the highways and byways of olde England, they spread their seed far and wide. That gives a new meaning to the phrase "genetically modified crops". I think that they should be labelled, but that is another issue. As my right hon. Friend said, the hereditary principle has been used as an advantage and switched on and off as necessary. It is no longer necessary and we must reform the House of Lords to achieve an efficient, democratic Government. We must have the first stage in order to move on properly to the debate about the second stage.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: Those of us who have sat through the debate so far will have realised that many of the more interesting contributions have crystallised what is wrong with the Bill. I am sure that it is widely agreed that constitutional Bills should be of particular interest to us all as parliamentarians. After all, if parliamentarians are not sensitive about parliamentary democracy, no one else will be. It behoves us, especially at a time when Parliament seems to be falling into public disrepute, to take any parliamentary reform seriously.
  It is my contention that it is impossible for the conscientious parliamentarian, who wishes to see an effective second Chamber as a contribution to the democratic process, to support the Bill, because it leaves the future of that Chamber as a void. As we have heard in many of the contributions today, people have tried to fill the void by suggesting what the result of the reform process should be. That is an entirely legitimate debate that this House and the country should be having, but the Government have introduced the Bill before any sensible consultation process has started and they have got everything in the wrong order.
  It is absurd to claim that any second Chamber would be better than the current one, as the Leader of the House did earlier. It is not possible to hold that position sensibly. The objection to the current second Chamber, which we have heard from Labour Members today, is that nobody should be able to vote in it by reason of heredity.
  Mr. Hope rose—
  Mr. Green: I shall save the hon. Gentleman the trouble. The answer to his question is yes. In order to vote for the Bill, one must believe that any replacement House of Lords would be better than the one we have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is interesting that Members on the Government Benches are chorusing yes. They are saying that if the Prime Minister of the day chose to appoint 500,
  658
  600 or 700 peers from his party to ram through legislation of which they disapproved—and they should remember that they will not always be in power—that second Chamber would be still better than the current House of Lords. If they believe that they are mad. They would be wrong and the proposition is anti-democratic. The Bill contains no guarantees that any of the promises given by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House would be put into law, that Lord Wakeham's committee need listen to any of the proposals in the White Paper, or that the Joint Committee of the two Houses will be abolished. The Bill contains no safeguards to ensure that a new second Chamber is better than the existing one.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right: the hypothetical situation that he has described would be anti-democratic. However, does he honestly believe that it would be less democratic than the Conservative party's permanent 3:1 majority in the present House of Lords?
  Mr. Green: Yes, it would be less democratic, as modern patronage, as opposed to old patronage, would be involved. [Laughter.] It certainly would not be better.
  Labour Members are proof of that. They regard it as preferable for a modern Government to decide to subvert Parliament by using its majority in this House to destroy the revising power of the second Chamber. That is an interesting insight into new Labour. It shows that Labour Members do not have a democratic bone in their bodies. They do not accept what Parliament is for. They do not realise that any Parliament needs a revising function, which must have at its heart the ability to defeat the Government of the day. If they do not accept that, Labour Members ought to be unicameralists, but I think that they profess not to be.
  Maria Eagle: When previous Bills have been introduced suggesting that the powers of the House of Lords should be changed, the Conservative party has always said, "Don't deal with the powers, deal with the composition." This Bill deals with the composition of the second Chamber, but now the hon. Gentleman says, "Don't deal with the composition, deal with the powers." Is not the hon. Gentleman really saying that he simply does not want the matter to be dealt with at all?
  Mr. Green: No, I am not saying that. The hon. Lady is extremely effective at attacking the Conservative party of 1911, but she should either bring herself up to date or find a new intervention for the second day of this debate tomorrow.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House about the Conservative party's attempts since 1911 to reform the other place?
  Mr. Green: The most successful reform of the House of Lords this century was the introduction of life peerages. That was done by a Conservative Government, so the hon. Lady need not worry on that score.
  Legitimate arguments can be held about the competence of the current hereditary peers and about the role and composition of the second Chamber. However, no case can be made for asking this House to change radically the composition of Parliament without any indication of how it will be composed at the end of

  659
  the process. We could have a second Chamber with a majority appointed by one Prime Minister—the parliamentary equivalent of the South sea bubble, the worst kind of capitalism, when investors were invited to buy shares in a company whose purpose would be revealed later. The Government are asking us to have a House in Parliament whose composition and role will be revealed later. That is no way to reform Parliament.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am glad to have been able to catch the hon. Gentleman before he proceeds too far down his line of argument. I have just realised what he has said. He contended that the introduction of life peers was the greatest reform of the House of Lords so far and added that it was done by the Conservative party. However, was not that exactly the power that he attacked as new patronage only a few minutes ago?
  Mr. Green: No. I was attacking the possibility that the Prime Minister of the day could be allowed to abuse that patronage. The Labour party claims to be modernising the constitution, but in fact it is seeking to entrench that abuse—a process that is neither sensible nor democratic.
  Labour Members should consider their individual positions, as they will vote on the Bill as individuals. I suspect that they would feel rather uncomfortable at being invited to vote for legislation on health, education or any of the vital issues if the Government introduced it by saying, "We are introducing a reform and we have no idea where it is going to end up." I suggest that they should feel even more uncomfortable about being asked to vote for constitutional reform, about which they have a responsibility as individual parliamentarians, and to take their vote seriously.
  The point has been made that a huge popular demand exists for the abolition of the hereditary peerage. It does, but only one poll has been taken about the means that should be adopted. In answer to a question about whether hereditary peers should be abolished before other details of the reform are decided, 25 per cent. of people agreed that the peers should be abolished. However, when asked whether things should be left as they are at present until the details of the reforms are decided, 68 per cent. of people said that things should be left as they are. Although I accept that there is a huge popular mandate for getting rid of the hereditary peerage, the British people do not support the way in which the Government are going about it.
  The Government have said already that they will accept an amendment that will drive a coach and horses through their protestations about how much they hate the hereditary peers. Earlier, the Leader of the House performed an extremely spirited Madame Defarge act when she expressed her deep hatred of hereditary peers. Therefore, it is slightly odd that the Government's first action is to reach for a compromise that will preserve 100 hereditary peers for the indefinite future. They object to the hereditaries so much that they will put them in what they describe as a transitional House and leave them there for as long as possible.
  The Bill is therefore misnamed: it should be called the Abolition of Hereditary Peers (Apart from the Ones We Won't Abolish) Bill. That is what the Government
  660
  are doing. The Bill is full of rhetoric about how unfit hereditary peers are to legislate on any matter at all. Nevertheless, the Government also appear to think that hereditary peers are uniquely able to legislate on the future of the peerage and the second Chamber.
  The Government's position is completely incoherent. If the hereditary peers can legislate on those matters, they cannot be so unfit to legislate on other matters. If the Government do not believe their rhetoric—and the gap between words and actions is huge—no one else should.
  The White Paper, I admit, offers hints about where we go next but it is not Whitehall's finest hour and does not illuminate the underlying issues as it should. The first problem with it has been touched on already by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The Government constantly repeat the line that there is an inbuilt Conservative majority of 3:1 in the House of Lords. In fact, the tables in the White Paper give the lie to that assertion. My hon. Friend has mentioned the overall total, but I point out to Labour Members that, even though there are 627 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, only 300 are Conservatives. That is less than 50 per cent. of the total—hardly a 3:1 Conservative majority.
  The Government derive the 3:1 figure by ignoring the Cross-Bench peers, about whom we have heard quite a lot of sneering in the debate. That is especially regrettable, as many of the Cross-Bench peers contribute to the debates of this Parliament a degree of non-partisan expertise that is one reason why the House of Lords is probably held in higher repute than the House of Commons at present. Labour Members should consider that point.
  The second big problem with the White Paper is that reveals the Government's tendency to blackmail. On page 29, it states:
  "If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election."
  Sadly, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) is no longer present. He referred to the consensus that has been on offer from the Government all along. The consensus seems to be, "You agree with us, and we'll form a consensus."
  Dr. Fox: On our terms.
  Mr. Green: Precisely. Consensus has to be on the Government's terms: there is no possibility of any consensus on any other terms. I do not think that that is a sensible way to claim that a national consensus is being sought.
  It is right that a Government should try to seek a national consensus on a constitutional reform such as this. One assumes that they want to set in train a process that will be permanent. They know as well as anyone else, that if they proceed on this partisan basis they will not achieve a permanent settlement. As a result, this country will be going through constitutional change for decades to come. Experience suggests that countries that have constant constitutional upheaval are not better governed in the long term.
  There is no guarantee in the Bill that the safeguards mentioned in the White Paper will be maintained. Perhaps a Minister could give us such a guarantee that

  661
  the aspirations of the White Paper are in fact firm commitments. Similarly, the Bill contains no guarantee of a timetable. This matter should not drift on from Parliament to Parliament, and I seek some assurances from Ministers about the timetable.
  The possible reduction of the powers of the House of Lords is another problem with the White Paper, which states on page 40 that there should be
  "arrangements to give government Bills introduced first into the second chamber the same protection as those introduced first into the House of Commons, so removing an artificial constraint on the management of Parliamentary business".
  The words "artificial restraint" are wonderful Whitehall weasel words: in other words, the Bill removes something that makes it slightly more difficult for the Government to put through their Bills.
  That paragraph alone gives the lie to any suggestion that the reform is about democracy. It is about increasing the power of the Executive vis-a-vis Parliament. As such, it could be extremely dangerous.
  Other clear weaknesses are not touched on by the White Paper. We cannot consider the composition of the House of Lords without considering its role. The Bill tends to increase the power of the Executive. The transitional house will, as the Bill stands, be worse than the existing House of Lords.
  Much has been made of evolution, but the Bill is not evolution. Evolution is an inevitable process, but the Government's direction is not clear, meaning that the reform cannot be an inevitable process. They are not taking a sensible evolutionary approach to constitutional change.
  The central problem of the Bill, however, is that it sets up a quango as part of our Parliament. The Bill contains no guarantee that the quango will not last the 88 years that the previous transitional arrangement lasted. The quango will be completely under the control of the Prime Minister of the day. That is not modernisation; it is playing blind man's bluff with the British constitution and with British democracy. Anyone who cares about the roles, powers and democratic function of both Houses of Parliament will oppose the Bill.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: I welcome the Bill, which deals swiftly and effectively with important unfinished business. One of the most amazing things about the reform is that it has not been done before. Attempts to deal with the hereditary peerage litter the century—in 1910 and 1911, in the 1920s, in the 1940s, and in the 1960s. One reason why those attempts failed is that many of them were one-shot attempts, a fact from which we have rightly learned.
  The hereditaries have survived because of a combination of inertia, disagreement over alternative arrangements and the indifference of the Conservative party. I am proud that the Labour Government are beginning the process that will finish the job and give us a modernised Parliament appropriate to the 21st century.
  The issue before us may not top the public's agenda, but it remains important. People want, and deserve, a more representative Parliament. The hereditary principle is clearly an anachronism that diminishes the credibility
  662
  of the whole of Parliament. The current set-up also clearly frustrates the democratic will. The hereditary principle enshrined in our Parliament is clearly an absurdity.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Plaskitt: Not at this stage.
  One key test that we can apply to the House of Lords is whether, if we were starting out from scratch, anyone would suggest that the hereditary principle should be enshrined in Parliament. It is inconceivable that anyone would suggest that. Would anyone come up with the idea of having an upper House of Parliament of about 1300 members, many of whom rarely turn up? A majority of the House of Lords have inherited their seats, and they lack any discernable merit or right to a voice in legislation. Would anyone come up with such a chronically unrepresentative Chamber as the current House of Lords, which contains 759 hereditary peers, of whom one is black, one is Asian and 14 are women. Half the 759 went to Eton.
  The House of Lords remains basically an aristocracy. Long after the aristocracy lost its social influence and its economic power, it still holds political power. The Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George was right:
  "Aristocracy is like cheese—the older it is, the higher it becomes."
  The House of Lords fails the "would you start from here?" test. It also fails the test on whether there is any reason for continuing with its uniqueness. No other Parliament in the world has a system like ours. No other country with an hereditary monarchy extends the principle into its legislature. No sound reason can be found for the institutionalisation of aristocracy.
  There has, of course, always been one very unsound reason for continuation. The House of Lords serves, and always has served, the political interests of the Conservative party. The House of Lords is a Conservative House—with a very big C. Throughout the 20th century, the House of Lords has frustrated the will of non-Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Plaskitt: Not at this stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned Arthur Balfour. Balfour was quite blatant about the role of the Lords, saying in 1906:
  "Whether in power or whether in Opposition, the great Unionist party should still control the destinies of this great empire."
  That was almost 100 years ago, but the facts have continued to speak for themselves.
  On average, the House of Lords defeats Tory Governments 13 times a Session. It defeats Labour Governments 63 times a Session. The current Government, with their massive popular mandate, had 33 defeats in their first Session, almost all of them attributable to the votes of hereditary peers, the Members of Parliament that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, described last year in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies as: "the independent element".

  663
  Just in case the first-born of our nobility should ever stray from their innate conservatism, Tory Governments have kept the other place topped up by appointing twice as many Conservative life peers as Opposition peers. There has always been a smile on the face of the ghost of Arthur Balfour. No wonder the Tory 1997 election guide said:
  "It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  Mr. Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend accept that when Arthur Balfour said that the House of Lords was essential to the Conservative party, he meant, not only that it was essential to the party's dominance of Parliament, but, as he demonstrated in his 1905 resignation honours list, to the party's finances?
  Mr. Plaskitt: That is true, and it is an interesting historical addition to the debate.
  Mr. Green: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the Labour life peers created by the Government have contributed to Labour party coffers?
  Mr. Plaskitt: That is irrelevant to our debate.
  The Government are unquestionably right to finish the business in a series of quick steps. The process is set out in perfectly logical sequence: first, remove the hereditary element; then establish an interim House; then set up a fast-track royal commission. That sequence gives the prospect of a settled new structure, based on consensus and possibly in place before the next general election. It is the best way to finish the job with the minimum of disruption to the Government's important programme. Once all that is done, it will be easier for us to deliver effectively the agenda on which we were elected.
  The Government have set down the right basic principles for the next important stage. The proposed reform will secure the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. There will be no permanent majority for any party in the second Chamber, a reduction in prime ministerial patronage, and a broad mix of interests. A more representative second Chamber will result. If we place partisan interests to one side, we can see that a logical, straightforward reform is being proposed. It seems that it is widely accepted by many peers. They are presumably privately amazed that they have got away with it for so long and are now, for the most part, placidly resigned to their fate.
  It tells us much about the Conservative party in this place that this sensible, logical reform has caused such consternation in it. I suspect that most Conservatives are still in tune with the spirit of Arthur Balfour. His outrageous assertion of the right of the Tories to govern in perpetuity, regardless of the democratically expressed will of the electorate, still has its supporters here. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has not come to this debate because in a pamphlet last year for the Conservative Policy Forum he gave the game away by saying:
  "For Conservatives the constitution works."
  For the people, it does not. It should, and when the Bill is enacted, it will.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. William Cash: It is fair to say that the present House of Lords and the hereditary principle are indefensible. That has been commonly accepted across the Floor today. I do not have quite the reservations of some of my hon. Friends about the manner of the Bill's introduction. I see no particular problem, given that the royal commission will be set up and the Government's majority means that they will get the Bill through one way or another.
  We should concentrate on how best to address the remaining questions. I hope that the royal commission, in the short time available to it, will take evidence from as many people as possible and carefully consider the point that lies at the heart of the Bill: whether the proposals put the national interest ahead of party interest. When the ultimate provisions are revealed, that will be the acid test of whether the Government's policy matches up to my argument.
  I have heard repeatedly that the House of Lords has in the past exercised its independent role and stood up for the nation. I have a searing instance in mind. Some 450 peers, mostly hereditary, were whipped in to defeat something that is now not only Conservative party policy but Government policy: the holding of a referendum on the European issue, in that case on the Maastricht treaty. The whipping in of people from all over the country was despicable and the result bore no relevance whatever to the national interest. I am glad that a referendum, after a tremendous fight by many of us, is now established as a principle of both the Government and the Opposition. I would not indulge too much in praise of the independence of the House of Lords as it has been.
  I believe that a significant proportion of the House of Lords to come should be elected: in round figures, about two thirds or 75 per cent. There are problems with an elected second Chamber because there could be competition between two Chambers that claimed a direct mandate from the people. There are ways around that. There are people who could, and should, be nominated to the second Chamber for service to the nation. They have much to contribute and 1 see no objection to that in a second Chamber, provided that they are in a distinct minority.
  Alarming statistics show that the people who have been appointed to the Lords—not always people with the merit that one might have expected, looking back over the generations—do not always attend. We attend our House. It would not be extraordinary if they were expected to attend rather more often than they do. If the reforms are to take place, they would emphatically be expected to attend. Figures in the White Paper show that, in 1997–98, only 40 per cent. of life peers attended two thirds of sittings and 34 per cent. attended less than one third. To say the least, any new nominated or appointed element would be expected to attend much more often than that.
  The other way to avoid competition between a largely elected second Chamber and the House of Commons would be clear definition of functions. It is often said that the House of Commons has sole control over taxation. While I will not go into the constitutional ins and outs, there has been significant erosion of that principle, especially in relation to local government expenditure. If we want, as the Government claim to want, the House of Commons to be the pre-eminent Chamber, it should be

  665
  categorically stated that the Commons should be exclusively concerned with matters relating to taxation and borrowing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested. That is another fundamental question that would delineate the functions of this House and prevent competition if there were a largely elected element in the House of Lords.
  As one who voted 47 times against the Maastricht treaty when it went through on a three-line Whip—something that I would do again several times if I had the opportunity—I am perhaps rash to suggest it, but there is far too much whipping in both Houses. If we want the House of Lords to have the independence that it deserves, its Standing Orders should restrict whipping, if there is to be any at all. If we want an independent second Chamber, as the Government claim to want, and we want this Chamber to be pre-eminent, there are ways and means to achieve it. One is to allow true independence and have a constitutional Chamber with the capacity, if necessary, to give this House a bloody nose. That should be on the basis of independence and democracy, not the hereditary principle, or the nominated cronyism that is the alternative.
  The European dimension is, necessarily, part of the terms of reference of the royal commission. There is a role for the House of Lords. I have been a member of this House's Select Committee on European Legislation for nearly 15 years. This House performs a more useful role than many people suggest. In the House of Lords scrutiny process, Committees examine matters in a more considered manner than we are allowed to. Our Standing Orders should be changed to allow us to do that. I shall return to the point, which I have made in other debates, that there is a strong case, given the overarching character of the European legislative process, for a Joint Select Committee embodying the functions of the Lords and the Commons to represent the United Kingdom Parliament as a whole with respect to European legislation.
  Without exploring the ins and outs of the issue, let me say that it is perfectly apparent to hon. Members that, increasingly and incessantly, power is being taken not only from this House but from Parliament as a whole. If we are to begin those reforms and engage constructively with respect to the European Union, we must consider the matter carefully. For example, the Court of Auditors report has just come before the European Select Committee. That matter should have been considered on the Floor of the House, but that has not happened. I believe that issues of that kind should be considered by not only the House but Parliament as a whole. Reform of the House of Lords should include a means of integrating the functions of both Houses in order to ensure that there is a proper democratic alternative to the views being expressed elsewhere in Europe that impinge upon our constituents.
  In summary, we want the House to be pre-eminent, but it must also have proper regard to the functions of the House of Lords, which I believe should be largely elected. The two Houses must come together on the European issue and say that we are not prepared to be rail-roaded by legislation that is not in the interests of our constituents.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Phil Hope: The reform of the House of Lords involves three major planks: removal of the right of hereditary peers to vote and sit in the House; reformed
  666
  arrangements for nominations of life peers; and a royal commission to consider long-term reform. This Bill addresses the first of those three reforms in a disarmingly elegant one-line clause, which states:
  "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  In replying to my interventions, every Opposition Back Bencher has stated clearly that he or she supports clause 1 and abolition of the hereditary principle. That makes the position of Conservative Front Benchers even more confusing, as they have steadfastly refused to clarify whether they support clause 1.
  Last night, I watched the second instalment of a three-part drama called "The Scarlet Pimpernel", which is set at the time of the French revolution. It features a British aristocrat who undertakes daring rescues of French aristocrats during a rather more bloody 18th-century version of democratic modernisation. I was going to congratulate the BBC on screening the series at such an opportune moment, as we might draw some useful parallels. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes an unlikely latterday Robespierre and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House makes an even less likely Madame Le Guillotine.
  That parallel was completely collapsed in this debate when it came to casting the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as Sir Percy Blakeney, the Scarlet Pimpernel. The drama portrays that figure as a useless fop by day and an intelligent, resourceful rescuer by night. Regretfully, we appear to have seen only the hon. Gentleman's day-time persona in this Chamber. If the hereditary Lords are hoping that rescue will come from the Opposition, they will have to think again as convincing arguments to support their existence will, like the Pimpernel, remain ever elusive.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: It was said of the Scarlet Pimpernel: "They seek him here, they seek him there, but cannot find him anywhere." Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) fulfils at least that characteristic?
  Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. What is more, few Liberal Democrats have been present for the debate and we have sighted not a single member of the minority parties. I think that that fact is worth highlighting for the benefit of the wider public.
  My research about peers in and around my constituency has revealed some interesting facts. There are six peers registered as living in Northamptonshire: three life peers and three hereditary peers. Interestingly, one might expect the Duke of Buccleuch to register as living in the county, as he owns half of it. However, he is registered in Scotland, because he owns half of that as well. The phrase "absentee landlord" has a particular resonance for those of us who live in Northamptonshire.
  Hon. Members may be wondering where I gathered those facts. They can discover how many peers live in their constituencies by contacting their local electoral registry office, which publishes Lords reports about all members of the House of Lords who live in an area and cannot vote. That is interesting because clause 2—which has received no attention in the debate so far—gives hereditary peers the right to vote and to stand for election to the House of Commons. Under the Bill,

  667
  those hereditary peers registered as living in Northamptonshire could stand for election and earn the right to sit in Parliament, based on merit rather than accident of birth. I look forward to seeing the names of Earl Spencer, Lord Brassey of Apethorpe and Viscount Addison of Cotterstock on the ballot paper at the next general election—if they wish to retain their right to sit in Parliament.
  The central question posed directly by the Bill—one that every Opposition Member has avoided debating—is: why keep the hereditary peers? What is the case for retaining the hereditary principle? Are the Opposition arguing to allow members of the House of Lords who are there by accident of birth to maintain their voting power because they are so representative of the country, because of their track record in promoting democratic rights or because they keep a balanced check on the powers of the House of Commons? Let us have a look. If the Opposition believe that the hereditary peers are representative of the country, it would be reasonable to expect to see something approaching a gender balance. However, of the 635 hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords, only 16 are women and only two come from minority ethnic groups.
  If the Opposition are arguing that the hereditary peers represent the country, we might expect to see them come from all walks of life. Yet 45 per cent. of hereditary peers went to one school: Eton. Some 60 per cent. of them describe themselves as "landowners or farmers" and, perhaps most revealingly, only 1.4 per cent. describe themselves as "workers".
  Despite being completely out of touch with the real world, perhaps the Opposition can justify retaining the hereditary peers on the basis of their activities in the Lords. When in government, the Conservatives used the hereditary peers to force through deeply unpopular measures, such as the poll tax and rail privatisation. More recently, in the last parliamentary Session, they used the hereditary peers to oppose Government measures and to defeat the Government 33 times. Even worse, the House of Commons knows that, if certain measures—such as the legislation to ban fox hunting—were to be sent to the Lords while the hereditary peers were in place, the same land-owning Lords would abuse parliamentary procedure without a second thought and prevent the passage of any such Bills through Parliament and delay any legislation that accompanied them. Here we see the hereditary peers, who are unelected and unaccountable, in the worst light: frustrating the democratic process with unspoken threats, in the certain knowledge that they can hold the House of Commons to ransom. That is totally unacceptable.
  Mrs. Laing: I agree that most hereditary peers are unaccountable—but they are also unaccountable to any political party because they were not put there by a political party. That is why the hon. Gentleman's argument falls. Although many hereditary peers support the Conservative party at any given time, they remain independent. Several hundred of them could decide tomorrow to support any other party. When we discussed this subject a few weeks ago, some of them did just that.
  Mr. Hope: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Someone once told me that members of the House of Lords sit independently, debate independently and then vote Conservative independently.
  668
  Despite their unrepresentative nature and their appalling track record, can the hereditary peerage be defended on the basis that it offers a balanced check on the House of Commons and the Executive? The problem here is the word "balanced". The figures have been well rehearsed in this Chamber: the Conservatives outnumber Labour in the House of Lords by three to one. In government, the Conservatives forced through unpopular measures relying on the support of the hereditary peers. In effect, the presence of the hereditary peerage means that, regardless of who wins the general election, the Tories stay in power in one House of Parliament. A Labour Government get only the legislation that the Conservative hereditary peers allow them to have.
  Mr. Cash: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's script, but may I ask why the Government do not propose that the 91 hereditary peers be converted into life peers? Given everything that he has said and his repeated questions about the hereditary principle, why are the Government maintaining the notion that hereditary peers should remain?
  Mr. Hope: I am addressing the central issue, the one that Conservative Members appear not to want to address. Why have hereditary peers? I have not yet heard a single argument from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to justify the Conservatives' opposition to hereditary peers' rights being abolished. I am looking forward to hearing the Opposition spokesman who winds up the debate explain, in detail, whether the Conservatives will support the hereditary principle.
  The Conservatives cannot defend the hereditary principle, so they argue that we should take a big-bang approach, whereby we do everything at once, or nothing at all. To pick up the theme introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the Conservatives' position on reform appears to be that of saying that they would have some fish, but only if there were chips with it; they cannot have fish on its own. The Opposition's proposals make no sense, unless they are hungry for change.
  The reform is long overdue. On occasion, we in this House are guilty of overstatement, but I can say fairly that the removal of the right of hereditary peers to vote is momentous and historic. There can be no better way of marking our march into the new millennium.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Being in the interesting position of following the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) enables me to deal with the question that he repeatedly asked of nearly every one of my hon. Friends who has spoken in the debate. To save him the trouble of intervening on me, let me tell him that he will be clear as to my answer once he has listened to my whole speech. From having looked him up, I see that the hon. Gentleman was, for several years before becoming a Member of Parliament, a secondary school teacher: may I suggest that, had a third former, as it used to be, or a pupil in year nine, as it now is, repeatedly asked a question in the same childish way as he has done this evening, he as a teacher would have become distinctly fed up with that child.
  I would describe the hon. Gentleman's speech as the paradigm, the very epitome, of what new Labour is about in the Bill and the debate. From the start of the debate

  669
  and in the opening speech from the Leader of the House, we have heard the politics of envy, red in tooth and claw—that is what new Labour is all about. I strongly object to so much of what comes from the Labour Government because of their obsession with the words "modern" and "new". If anything in the United Kingdom is traditional, they are against it: a priori, by definition, if it is not modern, it is bad—that is new Labour's thinking. That thread was started by the Leader of the House and it has shot through every single Labour Member's speech.
  I stand here to expose the smokescreen that has been thrown up. With this Bill, the new Labour Government are trying to bring old and new Labour together by telling those who rebel against them on matters such as lone parent benefit or nuclear deterrence that they are at least getting rid of the hereditary peers. The Bill is designed to muzzle the left and enable the Government to say, "We're throwing you a bone, we're giving you a sop—we're going to get rid of the hereditary peers' voting rights for you." That is what it is really about: class prejudice of the old and worst kind. In making it clear that, when the Bill goes to the upper House, he will accept 91 hereditary peers carrying on, the Prime Minister has accepted the hereditary principle. The left of new Labour and the extreme left of old Labour do not like that, but they are muzzled.
  As a distinguished commentator speaking in a Radio 4 documentary said recently, there is a lot of republicanism on new Labour's Benches. This very afternoon, when one of my hon. Friends pointed out that the logic of Labour's position suggested that Royal Assent should be abolished, there were a lot of "Hear, hears" from Labour Back Benchers. However, the Prime Minister does not want to do anything that smacks of disloyalty to the monarchy, so again he muzzles his Back Benchers on the subject of the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Rammell: We have heard that bogus point about the relationship of the hereditary principle to the House of Lords and the monarchy before. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a pamphlet published by the Tory Reform Group, which argues:
  "Those that think, if the hereditary peerage goes, the monarchy will be next have no clear grasp of the clear distinction between the role of legislators, who make laws, and the role of a sovereign, who acts on advice"?
  If he cannot convince members of his own party, does he really expect to convince us?
  Mr. Hawkins: There are several possible responses to that question, but the first is to remind the hon. Gentleman of the point I was making when he intervened. When it was said that the logic of the Labour party's position was that Royal Assent should be abolished, there were a lot of "Hear, hears". As the presenter of the Radio 4 documentary said, when surveys are sent out to Labour Members asking whether they would abolish the monarchy, many hon. Members respond in the affirmative. However, they are not allowed to say so in public or to be honest about it in the Chamber, because their party leadership would not be happy were they to do so. That is what is really happening: Labour Members are being muzzled to prevent them from saying anything inconvenient, but that undermines the logic of their position and the class prejudice displayed in the Bill.
  670
  When we consider the role of the second Chamber in a bicameral legislature, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the important point is the scrutiny of legislation. I am especially concerned about the scrutiny of secondary legislation. My hon. Friend was right to say that a vast amount of legislation takes the form of delegated legislation, and I want any reformed second Chamber to be able to scrutinise properly European directives and secondary legislation. That is vital, so we must press, by means of detailed reasoned amendments to the Bill both here and in the other place, to ensure that any reformed second Chamber is able to provide that proper scrutiny. It is crucial that our legislature, in both Houses of Parliament, should be able to hold the Executive to account. The large amount of secondary legislation that passes through the House, especially that which originally emanates from Europe, needs detailed scrutiny and the electorate require both Houses of Parliament to give it that scrutiny.
  As on so many issues, of which the Bill is merely one example, the Labour party has let the genie out of the constitutional bottle, with no idea of where it will go. We can already see the grand project coming to grief with the creation of the Scottish Parliament. It was announced that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) who is currently known as the Secretary of State for Scotland, would be Scotland's First Minister, but the polls now suggest that he will not, and that the First Minister of the first Scottish Parliament will be the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), because Labour will lose the election in Scotland as a result of letting the genie out of the bottle. Only last night, I heard about polls showing that, in the Welsh Assembly elections, there will be huge gains for Plaid Cymru at the expense of Labour. Again, the Labour Government have let the genie out of the bottle and they must now reap the consequences.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman say which polls show that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) appears likely to become First Minister of Scotland? Every poll that I have seen recently suggests the opposite.
  Mr. Hawkins: Time will tell—we shall see when the voters go to the polls. Conservative Members have been warning that the great danger posed to the Labour party by letting the genie out of the constitutional bottle is that, when the Scottish people have a chance to vote, Labour will find that it is not in charge.
  Mr. Savidge: I repeat my question: which poll suggests anything other than that the Labour party is expected to be the largest party in the Scottish Parliament? I have not seen one recently that says that.
  Mr. Hawkins: I repeat my answer: we shall see. The poll that matters is the poll when votes are cast. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage and courtesy to apologise to me if I am proved right when the Scottish Parliament is elected. Several polls that I have seen forecast Labour losing ground and the Scottish National party gaining. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.
  Mr. Wareing: In view of the hon. Gentleman's recent remarks and his answers to my hon. Friend the Member

  671
  for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), is the hon. Gentleman now conceding that his party will be defeated in the Scottish Parliament elections?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have had quite enough of that. Let us return to the subject of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hawkins: On that point, I shall say only, of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the Labour Government have let the genie out of the bottle and will reap the consequences. The same is true of the Bill.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I have given way several times and I must now make progress.
  One of my particular concerns is whether there is another smokescreen in the Bill. Has yet another deal been done between the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to guarantee to the Liberal Democrats that there will be a second Chamber elected by proportional representation? Is that part of the Cabinet Committee's consideration of those issues? Is that an issue on which the Government have not shared the truth with the British people? Many people would be concerned if there had been deals that the Labour Front Bench had not informed Back Benchers about.
  Every time something is revealed, we find that Labour Back Benchers have been kept in the dark. They seem to me like mushrooms in that they are kept in the dark and have tons of ordure piled on them, particularly when it comes to secret deals between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.
  Before I finish my speech—
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady, whose inherited wealth could buy and sell most of the Conservative parliamentary party.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I suppose that gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks about class hatred on the part of Labour Members. He began his speech by complaining about the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) and saying that he would not answer it immediately but would do so later in his speech. The 10 minutes that is allocated for each Back Bencher's speech is about to end and he has not yet answered that question. Will he take the opportunity, in his concluding remarks, to tell us whether he supports clause 1?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no time limit on speeches.
  Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Lady had been listening to what I said, she would know that I suggested that the hon. Member for Corby listened to the whole of my speech,
  672
  as we are supposed to listen to one another in the Chamber, and then drew his conclusions. I ask the hon. Lady now to do the same.
  I shall quote the words of a former Labour Cabinet Minister to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Corby when he poked fun at the upper Chamber. That distinguished former Minister said of the upper Chamber:
  "We think of ourselves as the best here. We're far more intellectual, in fact we're altogether far better, than that lot down there. If you had an elected house, what would you end up with? Second-raters, people who couldn't get into the Commons, MEPs but worse."
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Corby will want to discuss that matter with Lord Longford because that is the answer to much of what he was saying.
  The Leader of the House said in her opening remarks that this Prime Minister was the first voluntarily to give up part of his patronage. However, we appreciate that giving up the power to appoint Cross-Bench peers is yet another tiny sop, yet another bone tossed into the air. The real use of patronage to fill the upper House with Tony's cronies is in the underlying subtext, which says, "We are going to move towards parity in the upper Chamber." That is what academic commentators are concerned about.
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I have given way a great deal and I must now make progress because others want to speak.
  I shall quote one or two non-Conservative, independent commentators. Anthony Barnett, the former director of Charter 88, said:
  "Surely Labour should first decide how it will replace the Lords with a democratic chamber? Otherwise it will create an Upper House that is so pliant and illegitimate that it will expose the government to the charge of dictatorship".
  That quote is from his very good book, "This Time", which was published in 1997.
  The professor of politics at Oxford university, Vernon Bogdanor, said in his book, which was also published in that year:
  "It is by no means obvious why the ability to defer to the wishes of one's party leader constitutes a better title to a place in a legislative chamber than the claims of heredity. Labour's proposal for a purely nominated chamber would involve a quite unacceptable increase in prime ministerial patronage."
  The professor of law at Manchester university, Rodney Brazier, said:
  "a wholly nominated House would constitute an enormous, ermine-clad quango."
  He was referring to the Conservative jibe. He continued:
  "There is substance to that observation, and such a nominated House would be the more objectionable if the methods for finding new peers remained unaltered, and if the goal of an elected second chamber were not, in fact, achieved".
  It is not only Conservatives who are suspicious of what the Government are up to. I warn Labour Back Benchers and those on the left of the party that they will not like what they are getting from the Government.
  This is a bad Bill. It should have allowed those who are doing the work in the upper Chamber, including hereditary peers, to stay on. I do not defend those who never turn up, but it should not matter whether those who do the work and who are able and qualified by experience are hereditary

  673
  peers or appointed life peers. Those who show that they do the work should be able to stay on. There is no reason not to accept that principle. I hope that, in due course, the British people and Labour Back Benchers will realise what the Government are really up to.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I thought that we were here to debate the principle of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, not whether we should do away with the electoral principle in the House of Commons. The previous speaker was a walking advertisement for that proposition. I suggest that the Conservatives currently have problems in Surrey.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, most Conservative Members have ignored your instructions to be brief and have strayed a long way from the subject of the Bill. I shall try to be brief, not because I want to go to the Lords but because I want to visit the gentlemen's before long.
  I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate because we are literally making history. The Bill will put the past behind us, where it belongs, and allow us to embrace the future. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will forgive me for saying that the Bill demonstrates that we are a modern, forward-looking society. We are not intimidated by our history. We are not frightened to make change, particularly when that change is for better government, which is the simple proposition of the Bill.
  This is an historic Bill. In barely six lines it consigns seven centuries of privilege to posterity. That is a simple proposition. What is remarkable is that it has taken the world's oldest parliamentary democracy so long to accept that power should not be handed down from generation to generation as if it were a family heirloom; and that no man or woman or class of men and women should, as a matter of right, be able to hold or inherit the power to govern the people of this country.
  Tory Members can huff and puff, but they cannot hold the House up and they cannot justify the hereditary principle. It is absurd; it is an anachronism; it is an anomaly. It makes us a laughing stock that political power remains in the hands of 750 families whose forebears—some good men, some not so good—won it or bought it from a monarch—sometimes a good monarch, sometimes a bad monarch—over 1,000 years of history. It is indefensible that power can become a dynastic birthright to be exercised by the few, all too often against the interests of the many.
  Such power is enjoyed nowhere else in the world. If this were the Government of Iraq, we would condemn it as corrupt. If this were a regime in Africa or South America, we would be sending Inter-Parliamentary Union delegations. We would make our aid contingent on the development of modern democratic institutions.
  That is why stage 1 on its own is justified. It abolishes the rights of hereditary peers to sit and to vote. It may not take us far into the 21st century, but it will at least rescue us from the 13th century. I might add that once we are reforming the House of Lords, it is not too late to consider reforming this House as well. Other hon. Members have elaborated their views of how this House should be reformed. If we are to about to charge headlong into the
  674
  21st century, it would be a good idea to draw the House of Commons at least into the 19th century before we leave the 20th.
  We are not engaged, as has been suggested, in an act of class war or vengeance. The Bill confers on hereditary peers new rights to join the human race—to vote in elections and to stand in elections. It legitimises, improves and modernises government so that it serves our people better. That simple proposition captures the spirit of the age. People want aspiration, opportunity and achievement in place of privilege and patronage.
  Over the weekend we polled 50 of my constituents and asked them their views of the Government's plans for the reform of the Lords: 64 per cent. of them said that they wanted the reform of the House of Lords, and only 15 per cent. opposed the plans. My constituents in The Wrekin want to embrace the future, without being handcuffed by history.
  Mr. Grieve: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's figures. What exactly was the question asked—whether there was a need for total Lords reform, or for the abolition of the hereditary peerage without knowing what the total reform will be?
  Mr. Bradley: My constituents have a great deal more sense than Opposition Members. We asked them whether they support the Government's plans to reform the House of Lords. They gave us a resounding yes, just as people have done throughout the country when asked the same question. People want a Parliament that is representative, democratic and accountable. The Lords as currently constituted are none of those things.
  My colleagues have made much of the statistics, and they bear repeating. Of 635 hereditary peers eligible to attend the House of Lords, 304 take the Conservative Whip; 60 per cent. are landowners; 45 per cent. went to Eton; only 16 are women. The Conservative election guide of 1997, with which I am sure Opposition Members are only too familiar, stated:
  "It's important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  I shall be fascinated to hear hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench uphold that principle.
  The Conservative election guide went on to state that hereditary peers were "an asset to democracy". It continued:
  "Hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament."
  Colour—two black hereditary Members of the House of Lords. Tradition—oh yes, there is tradition. It is the tradition of a 3:1 Conservative majority. Youth—54 per cent. of peers are old-age pensioners, and 24 per cent. are over the age of 75. That contrasts strikingly with the composition of the House of Commons, where 6 per cent. of Members are over pensionable age and only 0.5 per cent. are over the age of 75.
  Mr. Grieve: That is a bad point, is it not? On that basis, old-age pensioners are badly represented in Parliament, so the balance is redressed by the other House.
  Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The point is that in your election guide in 1997, your party made great play of the fact—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should use the correct form of address. He is addressing me at the moment.
  Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The conventions of this House require attention, like the conventions of the other House.

  675
  The Conservatives' election document stated that hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament. If that is what they value in the upper House, they are failing to meet that objective. What commends the hereditary principle to Conservative Members of Parliament is the undeniable fact that the hereditary peers in the upper House are male, from privileged backgrounds, and Conservatives.
  The Conservative party has lost its grip on government, it has been ejected from council chambers throughout the country, and it has virtually been banished from Scotland and Wales. It has lost the argument, it has lost its credibility, and it has lost the plot. No wonder it is clinging to the only institution where it does not have to fear elections; where it has a majority without a mandate; and where it can defy the Government and the people who elected it—and it does.
  In 1997–98, 33 Government defeats were sustained in the House of Lords and the margin of defeat was smaller than the number of Conservative hereditary peers who voted for it. In 1974–79, when Labour was last in government, 85 per cent. of the Divisions led to Government defeats. In the past 30 years, since the beginning of the 1970s, there have been on average eight Conservative Government defeats in the Lords per Session, compared with 63 Labour defeats.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is again absent from his seat. I wonder what he meant when he told Charter 88 in a recent interview:
  "we won't be ditching our core values".
  Those are the core values of privilege, power and the right to abuse that power. Would Conservative Members defend the hereditary principle if Labour had a majority of three to one in the House of Lords? I very much doubt it. It is time for hereditary peers to go, for they have neither legitimacy nor credibility. We can no longer allow this most democratic and respected—indeed, imitated—of Houses of Parliament to remain shackled to that most ridiculous one.
  It is not just a question of tidying up the history books; it is part of a radical programme of reform and enfranchisement. Devolution to Scotland and Wales has been mentioned. Once again we are to have a democratic metropolitan authority in our capital city; and there is a move to regional development agencies and chambers, and ultimately to the assemblies that go with them. We are modernising local government and experimenting with proportional representation. We are building a consensus on important constitutional issues with the Liberal Democrats, which I welcome. We have incorporated the European convention on human rights in our legislation, and I hope that there will shortly be a Bill on freedom of information.
  All those measures extend and strengthen the rights of individuals to have a voice in their government. Decentralisation empowers individual citizens and transfers government from the few to the many. There are no victims of those reforms. The Lords can return to their stately homes and grouse moors, and if they wish they can prepare for government. They can stand for election and, if the people choose them, they can have their say in this Chamber. If they have a contribution to make and have talent at their disposal, some will doubtless come here.
  676
  The royal commission has an historic task—to develop proposals for an upper House with peers who are equal rather than privileged. A House of Lords that will enhance our democratic process must replace a House that is an anomaly, an embarrassment and an affront. The Bill is about modernising Britain and strengthening people's rights. No political party with a future would oppose it.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I came here some 21 months ago with absolutely no appetite for constitutional change of any kind, but the experience of the past 21 months has given me an appetite for radical constitutional change. Of one thing I am absolutely certain: as they are set up, the Houses of Parliament are not working effectively. Our system is designed for primary legislation, yet 3,200 pieces of secondary legislation go through the Houses of Parliament every year. The vast majority of our laws are statutory instruments or orders. It is a kind of administrative government. We have truly become a bureaucracy rather than a democracy.
  I am convinced that that deluge of legislation is not being properly scrutinised and that we should change our parliamentary processes to ensure that it is. I am equally convinced that Members of Parliament are failing in their duty properly to hold the Executive to account, and that this House is very much the Prime Minister's poodle.
  I suspect that that process has accelerated, largely under this Government, but I am certain that it did not begin with them. These events have been in train for some time. They require radical reform, so I have become something of an advocate of change and of reform.
  It strikes me that the question of reform of the House of Lords opens up a great opportunity for us to address some of these issues, but in order to address them, and in order to ask the House of Lords to take on some of the functions that this House is now unwilling or unable to perform, we would have to change the composition of the House of Lords.
  As the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has pointed out, the House of Lords is undemocratic and unaccountable. If we want it to perform functions, certainly some that I want it to take on—functions that we are no longer capable of carrying out, not always because we are unwilling, but simply because we are incapable of addressing the sheer volume of administrative legislation that goes through the House—and if we want it to play a part in that reform, we must address the issue of its composition to give it some democratic legitimacy.
  I can safely say to the hon. Member for Corby—before he rises to ask me the question that he has asked so many other hon. Members—that, although I could support the principle in it, I cannot support clause 1 of the Bill. The reason is simple: any informed discussion of the composition of the other place must first be informed by discussion of what the proper functions of the other place are.
  There has been much talk of class hatred and class prejudice from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I probably have a background similar to that of the hon. Member for Corby. I probably sneakingly share the same resentments—having had to grub for votes to be elected to the House—and perhaps resent those who were

  677
  born to such a position, but the simple fact is that Conservative Members who share a fondness for the principle in clause 1 are not prepared to accept the principle that we should change our form of government without having any idea of what it is to be changed to.
  A Bill, including the provisions of clause 1, that I could vote for would contain a great deal more than this Bill. All this Bill contains is clause 2, which enfranchises the peers who will be thrown out of the House of Lords. I want an informed debate on the proper reform of the House of Lords, and I want the legislation before me, before we change what we have.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I have believed in House of Lords reform and the abolition of the hereditary peerage all my political life. I do not believe that this is a matter for fine argument or fine judgment; it is a matter of right and wrong. It is fundamentally wrong that we still have people voting in our system of government simply on the basis of the families into which they were born.
  The hereditary peerage, and the element of chance that it introduces to our system, is worse than governing by the luck of the draw. People who become hereditary peers come, by and large, from one background and from one interest group with one set of values, and support one political party. That is why the hereditary peerage is fundamentally objectionable.
  The hereditary peerage is also objectionable because of the fundamental and overwhelming political bias, to the Conservative party, that it introduces to our system. It was interesting to see what were almost smiles on the faces of Conservative Members when they attempted to defend—supposedly dispassionately—that party imbalance. It is indefensible; everybody knows that, which is one reason why we have introduced these reforms.
  The reforms are long standing and have been put clearly over the years. Three times this century there has been agreement that hereditary peers should no longer vote in the House of Lords. On the last occasion, the House of Lords itself agreed, by a majority of 5:1, that they should go. However, on every occasion that those proposals for sensible reform have been introduced they have been blocked, because of the vested interests of the hereditary peers and of the Conservative party, and because it was argued that the reform package should come in one package, as a whole. That is why the Government have introduced a two-stage reform. History has taught us that if reform is introduced in a single package, it will be blocked by the powers of the vested interests.
  If we believe that it is wrong for hereditary peers to have the right to vote in the House of Lords, it is also wrong that they should have the right to determine who their successors should be and how the successor House should be constituted. We explicitly said in our general election manifesto that we would reform the House of Lords in two stages, and that is what people voted for and what we are delivering.
  One issue that has not been addressed this evening, but has been discussed in previous debates in the House of Lords, is the Salisbury convention—the constitutional fix that sanitises the indefensible principle of hereditary peers. The Salisbury convention provides that proposals
  678
  in a political party's manifesto should not be voted against on Second Reading and should not be the subject of wrecking amendments. I maintain that that convention not only does not work, but undermines the current operation of the House of Lords.
  The Leader of the Opposition intervened on Lord Cranborne before Christmas. There had been veiled threats from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister responsible for constitutional affairs that this Bill and others would be wrecked, regardless of the fact that this measure was in the Labour manifesto, because the Conservative party disagreed with the Government's proposals on Lords reform.
  Lord Kingsland let the cat out of the bag last year in a debate on House of Lords reform, when he said that the abolition of hereditary peers was
  "a solution to a problem that I do not recognise. Therefore, in my submission, the Opposition would be entitled to think most carefully about whether or not the Salisbury Convention applied to the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 1054.]
  No matter that this measure was a manifesto commitment and that 13.5 million people voted for it. No matter that that resulted in the biggest election victory for any party this century. His Lordship said that this measure was a solution to a problem that he, in his wisdom, did not recognise. The constitutional fix of the Salisbury convention, which many Conservatives use to defend the indefensible, was blown apart.
  I contend that, because of its hereditary make-up, the House of Lords is not an effective revising Chamber. As it lacks democratic authority, it does not have the legitimacy that it should have to challenge the elected Government of the day. Because it is the poodle of a political party, it is not respected by Labour Members when it makes blocking proposals.
  Mr. Grieve: I may be leading the hon. Gentleman on, but from his remarks I take it that he believes that the second Chamber should, in future, be elected, so that it has a democratic mandate.
  Mr. Rammell: I certainly believe that the second Chamber should be democratically elected in part—not wholly—because this Chamber must remain the supreme governing body within the Houses of Parliament. Conservative Members talk about the independence of the second Chamber, but where was that independence when the poll tax and rail privatisation were pushed through?
  During rail privatisation, when the Government were decaying and no longer had a parliamentary majority, they did not even command the respect of their own Back Benchers. Massive opinion poll evidence showed that there was total opposition to rail privatisation. Even in those circumstances, when one would expect a revising Chamber to oppose and block the Government, that did not happen.
  Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. That did happen. The House of Lords significantly amended the Railways Bill, and the Conservative Government accepted the Lords amendments.
  Mr. Rammell,: My argument is that, in the circumstances, the Bill was so fundamentally

  679
  objectionable—and, overwhelmingly, public support was not given to it—that it should have been a matter not of amending, but of blocking the Bill. I bet my bottom dollar that, had a Labour Government been pushing that Bill in those circumstances, they would not have been as reticent.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rammell: No; I want to make some progress.
  Let me now discuss, in detail, some of the other Conservative opposition to the Bill. It appears, broadly, to be based on the concept that this Labour Government want a compliant second Chamber packed with what the Conservatives describe as "Tony's cronies". According to them, there will be a huge increase in prime ministerial patronage. If that is so, why are we saying that no political party will command a majority in the transitional Chamber? Why are we only seeking parity with the Conservative party in the House of Lords?
  The Conservatives argue that we want the second Chamber to become the Prime Minister's poodle. How can that be, given that, on the basis of the current figures, we would have to create a further 15 Labour life peers out of what would eventually be a total of 529 in order to gain parity in the second Chamber? That hardly justifies the language that we have heard from Conservative Members about Labour's attempts to dominate and swamp the House of Lords.
  It is also not true that, just because people are life peers, they are compliant in their attitude to the party that nominated them. I do not think that Lord Hattersley, whose "Endpiece" article in The Guardian I saw this morning, could be described as a compliant poodle of the new Labour project; but he has been nominated by this Prime Minister, under this Government. Lord Shore, who opposes every aspect of the Government's attitude to Europe, has also been nominated by this Prime Minister, in this Parliament, under this Government. I do not think that the Conservatives' case adds up.
  Let us now examine the Conservative defence of the hereditary principle. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) has already highlighted the Conservative party's ludicrous attempts, in its 1997 election guide, to justify the retention of hereditary peers, on the ground that they bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to the House of Lords. Lord Cranborne tried to take that a stage further when he said:
  "We are well on our way to being a cross-section of society when only 2.5 per cent. of that Chamber are women."
  We should remember that recently—in the last Parliament—the House of Lords, with its hereditary peers, had an opportunity to rectify matters. It was proposed that the eldest child, whether male or female, should succeed to an hereditary title. The hereditary peers, with the support of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, blocked that proposal to introduce some form of equality.
  I think that the real defence advanced by the Conservative party is more subtle. It is, I think, that these matters are complicated; that it is difficult to come up with an alternative; and that the Lords are not actually
  680
  very political. In June 1996, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said of the House of Lords:
  "Has it been showing bias over the years, dispensing favour to one party in government and refusing it to another? Not at all."
  How could anyone reach such a view, looking at the way in which the House of Lords, with the support of the hereditary peers, has blocked legislation proposed by Labour rather than Conservative Governments over the years?
  I thought it strange that the former Prime Minister should advance such a view. I think that most Members of the House of Commons consider him to be a decent man in many respects. How can he ignore the facts? My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) put his finger on the nub earlier. However partisan the platform of the Conservatives may be, they believe that their interest always coincides with the national interest. Many Labour Members will have heard Conservative politicians at local level saying, "We are not political. We are just Conservative"—I see nods from Conservative Members. It is that which undermines the case that they make.
  If anyone were left in any doubt about the lack of substance in the arguments of the Conservative party, or the offensiveness, in many senses, of those arguments, they need simply read some of the debates in the House of Lords recently and some of the things that Conservative hereditary peers have said. I give two quotations to finish with. Baroness Young said:
  "I believe … it is a constitutional outrage to use a manifesto"
  which was put forward during a general election—
  "to make a major constitutional change."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 943.]
  Just follow the logic and implication of that statement. The people have absolutely no right to decide matters of the constitution that affect the government of our country. I am sure that she would have gone on to say that they should leave it to their superiors and betters.
  The contempt for democracy that is inherent in Conservative party attitudes was best summed up by Lord Cranborne, former Conservative leader in the House of Lords, when he referred to Members of Parliament—Members on both sides of the House—as "myrmidons". Although I have a degree in modern languages and, therefore, some facility with language, that was a word that I had not come across before. I looked it up in the "Oxford English Dictionary" and the definition is "a hired ruffian" or "a base servant".
  That speaks volumes about Conservative hereditary peers' attitude towards democracy and Members of the House. It sums up far more eloquently than anything that I could say why the hereditary peerage has to go. We have been trying to do it for almost 100 years. As we approach the 21st century, a testament to the achievement of the new Labour Government will be finally, once and for all, to do away with the hereditary peerage.
  Mr. Letwin: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was going to tell us about the Government's plans for change of the House of Lords. He has not yet done that. In the last few seconds of his speech, I wonder whether he could tell us what he thinks the Government's plans to change the House of Lords actually are.
  Mr. Rammell: The Government have made it absolutely and abundantly clear that they will set up a

  681
  royal commission. They have set out the framework within which it will operate. As a sign of their good faith, they have appointed a senior Conservative party politician to chair that royal commission. That is not something that the Conservative party ever did in 18 years of government; it never attempted to create a consensus. We are going forward. We are modernising and we are going to end the indefensible: the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords.
  8.58 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I oppose the Bill because it is inadequate. It is inadequate because it does not deal with the whole issue.
  May I apologise in advance for the fact that, having taken part in the debate, I will not be present for its conclusion tomorrow evening?
  I am happy to answer the question of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). He has asked it of everyone else, but he has not yet asked it of me. I will save him the trouble by answering it immediately. Personally, I do not oppose the principle of clause 1.
  I do not defend the hereditary principle. I have not fought to become a Member of Parliament to defend a principle that, had my family had anything to leave—which, sadly, they did not—it would have gone to my younger brother. Worthy as he is, that is manifestly unfair. I could not possibly put myself forward for election and then defend a principle that is manifestly unfair and undemocratic.
  Labour Members seem to be arguing for democracy, but they are arguing for undermining democracy. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Labour Members express surprise, because they clearly do not understand what they are doing by supporting the Bill. The Bill should address the overall issue of reforming Parliament and the constitution, but it does not.
  Today, the Leader of the House seemed to be very pleased that the primary adjective she could use in describing the Government's proposals was "simple". Time and again, she said that the proposals were "simple", as though that were the Bill's best commendation. The Bill is simple only because it addresses only half the issue.
  Maria Eagle: Is the hon. Lady aware that, for 88 years, the Conservative party has been saying that we cannot deal with the issue unless we deal with all of it? Consequently, there has been no dealing with the issue, and the hereditary peerage continues to sit and vote in the other place. Does she not realise that the Bill offers a way of getting the job done?
  Mrs. Laing: I entirely disagree with the hon. Lady—the Bill is a way of not getting the job done. If the Government were serious about getting the job done, they should have included all their proposals in the Bill so that the House could consider them. Ministers have had 21 months to do so—what have they been waiting for? The situation is exactly opposite to the one that she describes.
  Earlier in the debate, the Leader of the House was wrong about the situation. It is easy to say that we should get rid of a certain system or object, but we are not dealing with the real argument if we do not say what should
  682
  replace that system or object. Ministers have not dealt with the real argument either in today's debate or in the White Paper, but are simply continuing to delay consideration of the real issues. If Labour Members were serious about getting the job done, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said, they would not support the Bill in tomorrow's Division.
  Angela Smith: Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me. Several times today, I heard Conservative Members say how much they supported clause 1, but they would not vote for the Bill because it did not go far enough. Perhaps she will tell us how Conservative Members can support clause 1 after the Tory party's 18 years in government, during which they introduced no such provisions? Some of us are a little confused about the depth of their support for clause 1.
  Mrs. Laing: It is a matter of priority. [Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members find that so amusing. In 18 years of Conservative government, we made changes that really made Britain a better place for its people to live in. We did not talk nonsense about modernity or about how the House of Lords Bill would—as the Leader of the House of Commons said today—make for a better Britain. The previous Government's actions in their 18 years in government made for a better Britain. The current Government are simply undermining all those actions and all that is good for the people of Britain.
  Labour Members—in the House of Lords Bill, and in their attitude—are undermining democracy itself. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he was surprised at Conservative Members' argument that wider constitutional reform was necessary, and that he and other Liberal Democrats were in favour of constitutional reform and recognised the need for wide reform. If he does not mind my saying it, he is being honest—[Interruption.] He does mind my saying so. Nevertheless, I commend him on recognising the honesty in Conservative Members' position on the issue. Moreover—of necessity—the honesty of our position shows the dishonesty of the Government's position. The Government are dishonest on the issue because of the, piecemeal nature of their constitutional reform.
  Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Lady has been kind enough to refer to me in such flattering terms, perhaps I should say that the message that I was trying to get across was quite simple—that she and her colleagues who are opposing the Bill, and therefore opposing clause 1, are letting the best be the enemy of the good.
  Mrs. Laing: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I consider it my duty to stand for the best, not just the good. That is why I shall not support the Bill. My constituents sent me here not to accept some mediocre little compromise, but to argue for what is right. I am not here to argue for what is popular in the opinion polls or for the old-fashioned, dogmatic principles of Labour Members, who have argued for the abolition of the House of Lords for years and years. Now they want to do it, but there is no point in doing it in such a second-class fashion. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's advice and continue to argue for what is best.

  683
  Labour Members are arguing not on principle, but purely for party advantage.
  Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Laing: I cannot give way again because I do not have time.
  The need for reform is not determined by the fact—pointed out by so many Labour Members—that there are usually more hereditary peers who support the Conservative party than any other party. That is a nonsensical argument. When I made the point earlier, Labour Members seemed to find it amusing, but peers are by their nature independent. They can choose to be members of the Conservative party, but they did not get there because they were put there by the Conservative party.
  That should not be the basis of the argument. We should not be arguing for party advantage, as the Labour party is. We are arguing on matters of principle. If we were arguing merely for party advantage, we would want to keep all the hereditary peers.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: You do.
  Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We do not propose to keep all the hereditary peers, because we are prepared to argue on principle.
  Mr. Paul Clark: I am confused about which principle the Conservatives are fighting on. The Conservative party's campaign guide in 1997 said:
  "It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  Conservative Members have said that they do not agree with that. What is the Tory party's position?
  Mrs. Laing: The principle of any parliamentary reform should be about how the people hold the Government to account. That is the principle on which I argue for reform of Parliament. If we had a principled Government, they would be arguing that, but they are interested only in pressing the right buttons to get the right answers in the opinion polls.
  In all the Labour contributions there is a flavour of student debating competitions about whether there should be an upper House and how the country should be run. The difference between Labour's student debating points and the Conservative arguments is that we recognise that this is not just a matter for knockabout arguments; it is a very important issue because it is the basis of our constitutional settlement. The principle is how the people should be able to hold the Government to account. The answer is through a strong Parliament. The Bill weakens Parliament and weakens democracy.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Paul Clark: I shall heed your earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my contribution short.
  684
  There is confusion among the Conservatives. Most of them, with the exception of those on the Front Bench, have supported clause 1. I have referred to the 1997 campaign guide, which says:
  "It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  Tory Members were asked why the Tory Government did nothing for 18 years, and about what had happened in the previous 88 years. There was confusion in their response—that the Bill will not do anything because it is dealing with a single issue and not the whole thing. We have had the added bonus of smokescreen issues, such as the monarchy, the German constitution, Tony's cronies, predictions about the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and even the evolution of fish.
  To help speed up proceedings, I intend to concentrate purely on the Bill. This Chamber was elected by some 31 million people. Those people listened to a political debate and cast their votes, according to their preference, to indicate the leaders whom they thought would bring the necessary help in terms of better schools and health care and improved transport, jobs and prosperity.
  I doubt whether many of those people realised when they cast their vote on 1 May 1997 that it would be partly devalued and reduced in importance because of some event or favour granted some 500 or 600 years ago. Some 743 men and 16 women have the privilege of sitting in our Parliament and voting on the policies of a democratically elected Government purely because of one thing—the fact that their parentage gave them that power. They are not there on merit; they are not there because of their own good works. They are not there because my constituents said that they should be there. They are there through the grace and favour of monarchs of centuries past.
  Nobody could seriously believe that that can be right for this country, or any country. In fact, one would go a long way to find any country where rights and responsibilities were passed to people purely because of their birth line.
  It is worse than that, because there is also the fact of the vast in-built majority—a majority which, as we have heard, never changes. One need not take my word, or those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for this; the Library contains clear statistics that are available to all. That majority delivers for one political party. It does not matter which party wins the election; the Conservative party always wins in the House of Lords. Some 48 per cent. of hereditary peers take the Tory Whip, compared with under 3 per cent. who take the Labour Whip. Those are the important statistics. Even a fan of "Alice in Wonderland" could not call the second Chamber "representative" or in touch with British society—unless that fan was Viscount Cranborne.
  The vast majority of people in this country achieve success and responsibility through their own merits. Some 59 per cent. of hereditary peers are there solely because of parentage. Only 8 per cent. in total are women. The largest political party in the House of Lords is the Conservative party, which stands at 41 per cent. The Labour party stands at 15 per cent. For this Chamber, the electorate gave the Conservatives 30 per cent. of the vote, compared with 43 per cent. for Labour.
  All the matters that have been mentioned today mean that the imbalance cannot be right. Hereditary peers have little in common with the men and women who live and

  685
  work in my constituency—for example, the nurses who work in our hospital, the people who work within the voluntary sector and those who work in the Shelter office. Many of my constituents have served their country in the forces, and in the Chatham dockyard, building ships and refitting nuclear submarines; some of those people, I might add, are still awaiting compensation for related illnesses. However, that is a matter for another debate. It is to those people, whom we were elected to represent, that we owe it to ensure that we have an effective, representative and modern parliamentary system to deliver good government. We can all agree that that should be the outcome.
  I do not rely on my personal thoughts or even my party's clear manifesto commitment; I undertook a survey in my constituency. I do not claim that it was scientifically based and I did not apply weighting factors to this group or that. However, it was widespread and the results were overwhelming. People in Gillingham want to see an end to the unfair rights of hereditary peers. They think that we should do it now and do it quickly. They want a second Chamber that represents the real world before the next election. Almost eight of 10 Gillingham people believed in the Government's plans and some 69 per cent. wanted to see the work of the royal commission and the Joint Committee completed before then. When I support the Bill tomorrow, I am confident, therefore, that I shall have the backing of my constituency.
  I recognise the real and sometimes valuable contribution that some of the hereditary peers have made. It would be wrong not to do so. I pay tribute to the achievements of their ancestors, who often played a valuable part in making Britain great; we should never forget their legacy. I also recognise that some hereditary peers bring real expertise and compassion to the legislative process. However, they have no direct link to my constituents or other people in this country. Gillingham's history contains several links with the House of Lords, but I will not go into that subject in great detail because we have heard much about the historical aspects of the argument.
  Some hereditary peers have helped our parliamentary system, but that does not mean that it operates efficiently or effectively. Only 20 per cent. of hereditary peers attended more than two thirds of the parliamentary Session in 1997–98. More than 200 did not attend at all. The regular attenders, most of whom are life peers, carry out the majority of the business of the House. All those facts show that reform is required.
  In our work as Members of the House of Commons we meet many people who excel in their areas of work, in some cases battling against the odds to raise families or achieving business success and creating worthwhile prosperity for our regions. Such people clearly understand the social agenda and challenges of today. They work in their communities to develop harmony and bring together different strands of society. Such people could bring their skills and expertise to a second Chamber to give it legitimacy in its own right. The current House of Lords lacks that legitimacy, because of its anachronistic and unrepresentative composition.
  I am sure that most people would agree that this is a simple issue. The Government's proposals are clear and
  686
  concise, and they honour our commitment to the British people. On 13 July last year, Leader of the Opposition said:
  "the reform of Parliament must be above party politics. Rushed and ill thought-out reform, dreamt up in the heat of party political battle, could threaten the foundations on which our freedoms and liberties are based."
  Rushed? For 88 years, attempts have been made to reform the House of Lords, every one ending in the sands. As long ago as 1917, an inter-party conference agreed that the House of Lords should not be dominated by one party, that it should contain an independent element and that it should be made up of those with "personal eminence".
  The Bill is not ill thought out. The royal commission had a clear task and a definite time scale. I hope that hon. Members will read its terms of reference carefully, as they cover the second Chamber's composition and its roles and functions. It was not always evident from today's debate that everyone had read those terms of reference. With the fullest involvement of all interested parties, we can provide a legitimate and effective second Chamber for a modern and dynamic society.
  The only freedoms and liberties that I want to be attacked are those that bear no reference to today's society and to the people whom we represent; by that I mean the freedoms exercised by the hereditary peers when they vote on parliamentary Bills.
  Voltaire wrote:
  "Whoever serves his country well has no need for ancestors."
  We all needed our mums and dads to be here today, but we need a modern, meritocratic system in which people endeavour to do their best, in their chosen fields, for our country.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can't you shut him down?
  Mr. Clark: I am coming to a part that may excite the Opposition.
  My constituents regard the hereditary principle as outdated and outmoded. That is why the Tory party's Battle for Britain campaign, launched by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), is doomed to failure. It is a smokescreen, used throughout this debate and the whole campaign, to hide internal divisions in the Conservative party. The Tories claim that Britain's freedoms are under threat from this Government's plans to abolish hereditary peers and that Labour Members do not care about the same things as the British people.
  I hope that I have nailed those falsehoods by bringing a clear message from the people of my constituency with whom I have discussed the matter. The Opposition's campaign looks back to the past as the Conservatives try to wrap themselves in the Union Jack. Unfortunately for our democratic process, Her Majesty's official Opposition are wrapped only in a time warp as they fail to look forward or help to create a modern parliamentary system.
  The British people expressed their approval of our clear manifesto commitment to an initial, self-contained reform of the hereditary principle. The Government will carry that reform through, and I hope that the Opposition will not try to defend the indefensible.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall begin by answering the question that seems always to be asked by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who reminds me of a grand inquisitor general examining people for the oath of the Acts of Supremacy, saying, "Will you subscribe to the oath?" I have to say that I certainly do not subscribe to clause 1, as it stands. Before I do, I need to be persuaded, pragmatically, that what is being substituted for the present arrangements will be an improvement on them.
  Otherwise, I am open to persuasion across the range of possible options for reform of the upper House, including, as has been remarked already by several hon. Members, its potential abolition. I rule out none of those possibilities, but we must decide whether we shall be better administered and governed as a result.
  Labour Members have argued persistently in this debate that we should go for stage 1 before stage 2, and that stage 1 is discrete and separate. That argument would be more valid had not the Government chosen to embark on such a massive raft of constitutional reform, covering almost every aspect of our lives. When hon. Members consider the matter carefully, they may have little difficulty in agreeing that it is very difficult to know what the second Chamber will have to do in five or ten years' time.
  Will it be a balancing chamber in a federal constitution? Will it include regional representation? Will it involve a greater emphasis on the affairs of the European Union and, perhaps, on Members of the European Parliament? We are in the dark on all those matters because of the extent of the proposed changes. If ever there were an argument for leaving reform of the other place to the next Parliament—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. It should be left for longer so that we can see how issues such as those work through. To my mind, that would be the best course.
  That is not the course that the Government have decided to adopt, so I can only try to do what I have done in other constitutional debates: speak on the options that are available. As I listened to the debate, little chills were struck in my heart when the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) said that he preferred a mixed second Chamber, part-elected and part-appointed. The hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag by saying that his reason for that view was that the second Chamber must be subordinate, and must not challenge the democratic legitimacy of the House of Commons.
  I am not hung up about the democratic legitimacy of the House. It is not democratic as it is: we have parliamentary government. What works in the United Kingdom is that our government is as close to consensus as can usually be achieved.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grieve: In a moment.
  As a result of that system, we can carry out changes and implement policies without people killing each other in the streets. The UK has been remarkably successful over the past century in achieving that, with the exception of the affairs of Northern Ireland. We should not forget that fact. Every time we tinker around, or every time we
  688
  go overseas and vaunt some new structure, we should remember what the upper House has contributed towards stability.
  Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grieve: I shall try in a moment to give way both to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), but I have little time.
  There are three options, and we shall consider them all at a later stage. However, in considering the balance between a second Chamber that is nominated or elected, the idea that gives me most anxiety is that of a mixed second Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) both argued powerfully for an elected second Chamber, but that would mean comprehensive reform of the structures of the House of Commons. I am not sure that the Government have cottoned on to that fact; if they have, they do not want that reform.
  If we are to have a nominated second Chamber, the Prime Minister's exercise of the royal prerogative of nomination will have to be addressed. I am not particularly hung up on the exercise of the prerogative, and there are points to do with it that can be addressed. I do not entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that we cannot have an independent commission of appointment, and that we should have to go back to square one. These matters are unclear at present, and that is why I cannot support the Bill.
  Time is short, so I shall not develop other themes until the Committee stage, but one last matter requires a response from the Minister. The Leader of the House, who behaved a little like a tricoteuse as she deployed venom on the hereditary peers, reminded me—I am a barrister—that even criminals have rights. One of the Bill's oddities is that hereditary peers are currently deprived of the right to vote because, of course, they have the right to represent themselves. We are planning to deprive them of that right half-way through a Parliament, and that troubles me. There are only 759 of them, but it is an odd anomaly. We could allow their subsistence until the end of Parliament, and introduce the reform before the next general election.
  I find it hard to square that change with article 2—perhaps 3—of the second protocol of the European convention on human rights, which I have taken pleasure in commending to the House. We should not start a process of what is supposed to be democratic reform by infringing on people's rights under the constitution, but that is what we propose to do. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that matter.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: This has been a most interesting debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, its context is probably the most profound, rapid and wide-ranging constitutional change in the history of the United Kingdom. Whether that change will knit together to produce a coherent whole, our successors will judge; we are not optimistic.

  689
  The surprising thing is that the White Paper that accompanies the Bill is almost wholly lacking in long-term radicalism. The terms of reference that it sets for the royal commission begin:
  "Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament".
  The problem has been brought out in this debate, but not in the White Paper. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)—I cannot miss the opportunity to wish her a happy birthday—brought out clearly the fact that the problem is not whether this House is pre-eminent in Parliament, but whether Parliament is pre-eminent in the country. Does Parliament have a serious, effective role in checking the Executive?
  Dr. Starkey: I have the six points that your leader set out as the principles of reform—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady intervenes a great deal. She should know by now how to address hon. Members.
  Dr. Starkey: I am sorry. The leader of the Conservative party has set out six principles. The last says that
  "the supreme authority of the House of Commons as the focus of democratic accountability in our country must remain intact".
  Can the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) explain how that equates with what he said about Parliament, rather than the House of Commons, being important?
  Mr. Letwin: I am terribly sorry if my phrasing made the hon. Lady incapable of understanding what I was trying to say. Our problem is not the pre-eminence of this House, which we believe should be maintained, but that neither House has anything like the pre-eminence over the Executive required for accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made that proposition clear. He listed some of the areas in which it is above all true.
  Laying aside all party politics—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not wish to, but it is sometimes valuable in discussing the constitution to take it seriously. I would be surprised if Labour Members did not agree that neither House has the ability to stop the Executive, through the Whips, carrying primary legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) clearly made my next point. I would be surprised if Labour Members, some with long and distinguished parliamentary careers, thought that either House is seriously capable of checking the Executive's efforts to bring forward secondary legislation. How many hon. Members are even aware of the great bulk of the secondary legislation passed in their name, year by year?
  On Europe, several hon. Members mentioned the extraordinary turn of events of the past 30 years. The prerogative power, once thought to have been defeated in the 16th and 17th centuries, can now legislate via Ministers, as long as 14 Ministers from other countries are present.
  Mrs. Beckett: Who did that?
  Mr. Letwin: Still in debating mode, the right hon. Lady asks me who did it. I admit that it was done by
  690
  the consent of the whole House, including the previous Government. Alas, it remains the fact, and debating points do not change serious facts. If the Government could get over debating points and get down to the business of constitutional reform as if it were a serious matter, it would be better for the House and the country.
  Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: I want to make some progress. I have a sneaking suspicion that I know what the hon. Lady wants to ask because she has asked it about 15 times already, but I shall give way later.
  The third area is Executive action. The fact is that the Government act not only through legislation—secondary or primary. They act on a huge terrain, with 600,000 or 500,000 civil servants. Does this or the other place seriously have an effective check on those civil servants and their actions or upon the Ministers in whose name that action is taken? My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring referred to judicial activism, which is on the increase and is hugely important.
  Beyond that is a point that will surely resonate in the minds of even the most obdurate Labour Members. They must agree that it is an extraordinary state of affairs when, according to our constitution, the Executive can change the constitution perfectly legitimately by the mere device of appropriately whipping the House with no more than a slight delaying power in the other place. That extraordinary situation obtains in no other major democracy. There are serious deficiencies in our present constitution—I do not seek to lay blame; we all share it. They are facts. The problem is that the Bill does nothing to address any of those problems relating to Parliament.
  Maria Eagle: I raise a different point. The hon. Gentleman has outlined a compelling case regarding the accountability that should be forthcoming in this place, but which is ebbing away. What did his Government do about that during their 18 years in power?
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has returned to debating points. The honest answer is: not enough—but if she thinks that that is an excuse for her Government to make an enormous number of constitutional changes without addressing the problem, she is much mistaken.
  The fact is that, looking to the future, the Bill leaves what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) called a "void". It is exactly what my hon. Friend called a "south sea bubble prospectus". As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, it is a smokescreen. Behind that smokescreen, is de facto unicameralism. The Bill reinforces what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) described accurately as a presidential system without the checks and balances. That is the problem that we face and the problem that the Bill does not address.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for giving way. However, I think that he is being a little less than fair to the Government in respect of accountability and the discharge of power. In the last Session of Parliament, human rights legislation was enacted—which gave the judiciary the power to protect citizens against abuses of power and of

  691
  their fundamental rights and freedoms—together with legislation that distributed power to Scotland and Wales and re-established power for London. This is a process, not a written constitution that will deal with all the hon. Gentleman's queries. However, I hope that he will welcome the Bill as a step towards achieving the kind of balance that is clearly needed in a modern constitution.
  Mr. Letwin: Unlike some Labour Members, the right hon. Gentleman is engaged seriously in these matters. I take his point entirely: some of the Government's actions, however ill aimed in practice, were well intentioned in that they tried to give more rights to the citizen. Alas, the Government so elevated the judges in some cases and other bodies in other cases, without looking seriously at the need for parliamentary accountability, that they merely created one monster to slay another.
  The problem with the Bill is that it does not solve what might be called the "phase 2 problem". Labour Members are not unintelligent: they have an answer, which almost all—there have been some honourable exceptions—have given. Labour Members have said, "This is just phase 1; let's wait for phase 2. In phase 2, everything will be resolved."
  Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: Dear me, no. However, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. The scene resembles the Monty Python sketch in which someone calls out, "No. 9", and then there is a response to the joke. The sad fact that the hon. Gentleman must accept is that we do not oppose clause 1 in principle. We oppose it in this Bill only because of the deficiencies to which I have drawn attention: the legislation does not tell us what will replace that which is being removed. Until we receive a serious and decent answer to that question, no right-minded person can conceivably support clause 1 or any other clause of the Bill.
  The question is whether the Government are serious and honest in saying that they are going to come forward with a phase 2 that will solve the problems I have described. I admit that the jury is out and that we shall see the decision in due course, but the evidence is not comforting. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, there is reason to fear that the transitional scheme will be permanent. The reason is partly that we are 20 months late in seeing a royal commission; partly that, after the royal commission, there is to be a Joint Committee; partly that, after the Joint Committee, unless I am much mistaken, there is in all likelihood to be a general election; and partly that there is all the possibility in the world that phase 2 will never occur.
  I do not rest my case on that—there is something much worse. It is that, even assuming that phase 2 will occur, the White Paper gives us absolutely no indication of the sort of radical thinking that is necessary to address the problems of Executive power. Page 36 states:
  "The role of the second chamber should continue to complement"—
  692
  what reassuring, complacent words; they could have come straight out of Bagehot or Dicey in one of his worst moments—
  "rather than duplicate the role of the House of Commons."
  In effect, we are to have a twin poodle—another Chamber that will, via the Whips, the Prime Minister and the prerogative power, continue to be under the thumb of the Executive.
  If the Government and the Labour party were serious about reform, as opposed to abolition, we should have heard about matters in this debate that we have not heard about from Labour Members, but that, reassuringly, we have heard about from Conservative Members. Those matters include pre-legislative scrutiny; the need to provide a serious check on prerogative legislation in Europe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) clearly pointed out; serious scrutiny of Executive action—[Interruption.] It ill behoves the Leader of the House to be commenting, given that she was not present for a single moment when those remarks were made. The matters also include measures to address growing judicial activism and to make quangos more accountable. We have not heard Labour Members mention any of those matters, even in passing, and the White Paper makes no mention of them at all.
  The White Paper reads as though there were no problems to address, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone, for Surrey Heath and for Beaconsfield suggested extraordinarily radical approaches to problems that do indeed exist. Some went so far as to suggest that the de facto unicameralism should be transformed into simple unicameralism. I cannot currently join them in that camp, but does not the suggestion indicate a capacity to think through the problem that is, alas, despite all its majestic support, wholly lacking in the White Paper and nowhere present in the extremely thin Bill before the House? What is it that we face?
  Dr. Ladyman: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many of those serious issues would be addressed by leaving the hereditary peers in place?
  Mr. Letwin: I do not say that they would be addressed by leaving the hereditary peers in place; however, I do say that they would be addressed by a Government who were serious in their intent to reform, rather than to abolish. In coming months, because we take the problem seriously and because we accept the position that we, the country and the House are in, the Conservatives will make radical and serious proposals for the reform not only of the House of Lords, but of the constitution of Parliament as a whole, and for the rebalancing of the constitution of this country as a whole, so as to remedy the problems that the Labour Government have partly left untouched and partly greatly exacerbated. I regret that it should fall to the Opposition to fulfil that task, but if needs be, we shall fulfil it.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As might have been expected, today's debate has been fascinating

  693
  and, at times, passionate, as strong views were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all accept that the reform of Parliament goes to the heart of our constitution, so it is natural that people will hold strong views on the subject.
  Despite that, in one important respect, today's debate has followed the pattern of debates on other constitutional measures that have already gone through the House: we have heard two clear, but divergent, approaches. Most Opposition Members hold to the perverse view that, despite having evolved over hundreds of years, the British constitution as it existed on 1 May 1997, was almost perfect and could not be improved upon. No alternative to our proposals has been suggested tonight.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He said that the Conservatives intend to state, in due course, what they would do. At this stage, we still do not know their approach to this matter. We know only that they are opposed to our approach. I now give way to the hon. Gentleman, but briefly, because I want to make progress.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister, who is always courteous. I wonder whether he was listening when I said that I thought that there were grave defects in the constitution, admittedly exacerbated by the present Government, but also, alas, inherited by them.
  Mr. Howarth: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's approach is that he proposes no solution. He and his hon. Friends oppose every proposal that we make to improve our constitution. Although they may say that there is a case for change, they always oppose specific change.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) also is always courteous, but I take issue with him quoting—correctly—a sentence from paragraph 7 on page 36 of the White Paper, which says:
  "The role of the second chamber should continue to complement rather than duplicate the role of the House of Commons."
  The hon. Gentleman described those words as complacent, but he did not quote the rest of the paragraph, which continues:
  "The House of Lords provides a valuable function of scrutiny without which the burden on the House of Commons would be greater and the quality of government legislation diminished. As has previously been noted, over the past ten years the House of Lords has made nearly 2,000 amendments a year to government legislation. These are most often government amendments, frequently brought forward in response to points made in both Houses. Legislative scrutiny will continue to be an important purpose of a reformed second chamber."
  The hon. Gentleman should not quote only one sentence from a paragraph. It would be as well for the House to hear the whole paragraph, which, I glad to say, it now has.
  By contrast, Labour Members and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrat representative, put forward a very different view. We recognise that there are strengths in our constitutional arrangements, but we intend to build on them and adapt them to the times in which we live rather than the halcyon days of the past. I make no apologies for saying that we want to modernise our constitution so that it more closely reflects the needs of the country as it moves towards a new century, rather than its needs of a century or more ago.
  694
  It is time that we got on with making such changes. There could be no better illustration of that than our approach to the reform of the House of Lords. Some backtracking is now occurring, but I am astonished that anybody could stand up and seriously argue that people should have the right to serve as members of a legislature on the basis of nothing but an accident of birth. At least the hon. Member for West Dorset accepted that clause 1 and the first phase were supportable. I shall come on to the flaw in the rest of his argument in a moment.
  We have made progress today in that the official Opposition are not prepared, at least not publicly, to defend the right of privilege in the legislative arrangements for hereditary peers. Yet despite that step forward, in 1999, in one of the world's oldest and proudest democracies, the majority of members of one of the Chambers of Parliament is comprised of those who sit there, not by virtue of their own merits, but simply because one of their ancestors may have performed a service, small or large, for a monarch many hundreds of years ago.
  That is an absurdity that cannot be allowed to continue. It is not as if hereditary peers are a benign, decorative aberration, as some would like us to believe and as Conservative Members have claimed tonight. In this Parliament alone, we have witnessed at first hand how hereditary peers wilfully and repeatedly sought to overturn the clearly expressed wishes of this democratically elected House.
  Perhaps we should not be surprised by that. The simple fact, which probably goes a long way towards explaining the stance taken by Conservative Members on the Bill, is that throughout the past three quarters of a century the House of Lords has regularly inflicted defeats on measures introduced by Labour Governments.
  The statistics are striking. I shall quote from research paper 98/104 produced by the Library, from which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Island quoted earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "Easter Ross."] I am sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). If I stick to the simple formula "Caithness and much else", it will probably serve us well.
  The research paper states:
  "From 1970–71 to 1997–98 the average number of Government defeats"—
  in the House of Lords—
  "per session is 63"—
  for Labour—
  "compared with 8 for Conservative Governments."
  That statistic has been independently calculated and is incontrovertible.
  The hereditary peers, whose right to sit and vote in the upper House will be removed by the Bill, are not a cross-section of society who, by some accident of birth, express views that are benign and non-partisan. The evidence suggests the opposite.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that his right hon. Friend the President of the Council made—that a higher proportion of defeats has

  695
  been inflicted on Labour Governments than on Conservative Governments. Will he tell the House what serious defeats impeding the mandated programmes of Labour Governments have been inflicted? Is it not the case that Labour Governments, on the whole, have introduced radical legislation, going back to trade union legislation and nationalisation legislation, which was highly controversial at the time and which has mostly been repealed since, those repeals now being accepted by the present Labour Government?
  Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to address the fact that in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments, Labour manifesto commitments were overturned by the House of Lords. In the last Session, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which I freely grant that Opposition Members did not like, was a manifesto commitment by the Government. That was sent back no fewer than five times—or was it seven?—by the House of Lords.
  Mr. Cash: On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, I freely admit that under no circumstances would I vote for our position on that, because as far as I was concerned, proportional representation was out of the question, and the House of Lords should never have agreed to it, as a matter of principle.
  That is just a minor matter. On the subject of defeats in the House of Lords, before I entered the House I happen to have been involved in the legal process in the House of Lords regarding the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which was one of the flagships of the Labour Government of the time. I can tell the Minister, if he does not know, that the Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, was on the Committee that ditched the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill because the House of Lords was prepared to listen to the arguments on hybridity, which I say—some people may recognise this when I say it—may yet return in relation to this Bill.
  Mr. Howarth: That was a long intervention. I made the mistake of mentioning the word "Europe", at which point the hon. Gentleman sprang to his feet. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the arrangements in the House of Lords are different from those that the hon. Gentleman describes.
  Those who sit in the House of Lords by accident of birth overwhelmingly represent and vote for one political interest. They have shamelessly ensured that the Conservative party has a built-in 3:1 majority over other parties in another place. It does not matter to them how the electorate may have voted or what measures it wants them to support. Even when the Conservative party has been decisively rejected as it was on 1 May 1997, it has still been able to count on its built-in majority in the upper House, and has had neither shame nor compunction about using that majority.
  The sorry combination of Conservative Members and hereditary peers makes our case more compellingly than any speech in this Chamber tonight.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way because I have only five minutes left.
  I shall now deal with some of the questions that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked in his opening speech. He asked whether we would have the chance fully to debate that Weatherill amendment, as it will not be introduced until the Bill reaches the Lords. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) gave the transitional House argument for that. The House will have an opportunity to debate amendments passed in the other place when the Bill returns to the Commons. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, the Government have made it clear that they are minded to accept such an amendment, but only if it enables matters to proceed by consensus. We will not know whether that is the amendment's effect until the Bill is in the House of Lords.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked what guarantees there were that there would be a second stage. We have set the royal commission an extremely demanding timetable, but it is realistic and it guarantees continued momentum. The White Paper made it clear that if we can get a consensus and if the commission meets the timetable, we shall make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform is approved by Parliament by the next general election.
  Several Opposition Members asked why the royal commission had not been set up 20 months ago. The simple answer is that the royal commission's terms of reference are that part of its remit is to take into account the wider context of devolution, human rights and developing relations with the European Union. That simply would not have been possible 20 months ago because all those matters remained to be considered—[Interruption] I presume that the hon. Member for Woodspring would have preferred those matters to have reached the statute book before a royal commission took them into account.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had ruled out a fully elected second Chamber. We think that it would be wrong to pre-empt the consideration that the royal commission will give. To indicate a preference at this stage would be to clip the royal commission's wings. Frankly, it would be insulting to ask it to consider all those matters having stated what the end of the process should be.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Labour party will give evidence to the royal commission, and whether that evidence will be taken in public. It is a matter for the Labour party, but I should imagine that it will. Certainly, it will be for the royal commission to decide whether it conducts its proceedings in public or otherwise. I am sure that at least some of its proceedings will be in public. He also asks how long the joint Committee will last. That will be a matter for both Houses of Parliament, but the Government have made it clear that the joint Committee will meet after the royal commission has reported. We hope that it will be possible to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by the general election.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and one or two others asked why we do not

  697
  go for what one of my hon. Friends called "the big bang". The obvious answer is that every previous attempt at a single-stage solution has failed, usually because the then Conservative party took the view that, although change was necessary, that particular change was not. While that position is allowed to prevail, we shall never get reform the House of Lords through Parliament.
  We seek, first, the abolition of hereditary peers, which everybody apparently now agrees is the right way forward, and, secondly, a second stage that will attract as wide a consensus as possible. Only by consensus can we move forward.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Allen.]
  To be resumed tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 4th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

  (i) put the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) not later than Four o'clock; and

  (ii) put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to the English Revenue Support Grant Reports not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Allen.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Ordered,
  That—

  (i) this House, at its rising on Tuesday 16th February, do adjourn til Monday 22nd February; and

  (ii) the provisions of paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings) shall not apply to the sitting on Wednesday 10th February.—[Mr.Allen.]

  COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ordered,
  That Rachel Squire be discharged from the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. Gordon Prentice be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Speaker: It will be convenient to take motions Nos. 5 to 9 together.
  Ordered,

  That Mr. Menzies Campbell be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Mike Hancock be added to the Committee.
  That Ann Keen be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Ivan Lewis be added to the Committee.
  That Miss Melanie Johnson be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mrs. Janet Dean be added to the Committee.
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  That Mr. Dennis Canavan be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Tony Worthington be added to the Committee.
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That Mr. Vernon Coaker be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Ms Debra Shipley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hope, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Water Fluoridation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The existing state of the law governing the addition of fluoride to the water supply is most unsatisfactory. The water industry resents the discretion—and, therefore, the responsibility—that is placed upon it. Those who oppose the addition of fluoride to water resent very much the power and influence that is placed in the hands of health authorities and water companies. For my part, I share the natural suspicion of any free man with respect to the presumption of health professionals to decide what is good for me and whether or not I should consume it. Are we horses to be led to water and forced to drink?
  I am happy to take advice, from any informed source, about what may be good for me with respect to medicine or diet, but I reject utterly the notion that the decision about whether to consume should rest in any other mind than my own. However, it is not that philosophical question upon which I wish to dwell this evening.
  My initiation of the debate results from the persistent lobbying of my constituent, Dr. Anthony Dunstan Fox, who practises in Barton-on-Sea. He has drawn my attention to the fact that fluoride compounds are a poison, so much so that I am persuaded that we should be taking considerable steps to remove fluoride compounds from our environment, not providing yet another source of them.
  The state of the debate in this country is rather quaint. The Government pride themselves on their modernisations, so it is odd that we still appear to be addressing in this debate the preoccupations, fads and fashions of the 1960s and the 1970s. In the United States, for example, localities and cities are discontinuing their former policy of adding fluoride to the water. In Europe, that trend is equally apparent. Indeed, Germany—which is so much the model for the Government's modernisations—has abandoned the policy of adding fluoride to the water.
  That trend is a consequence of a growing consensus—a growing body of evidence—that fluoride compounds are a poison. In the United States, the Food and Drugs Administration has required since June 1997 the makers of any toothpaste product containing fluoride compounds to publish a health warning on the packaging. Consumers who ingest the product are advised to seek the advice of a poison control centre. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the Government's most prominent scientists, toxicologists and lawyers, has voted unanimously to oppose any fluoridation of the water.
  There is a growing volume of evidence of the poisonous consequences of fluoride compounds. In this brief debate, I cannot possibly do any justice to that evidence, nor am I qualified to do so, but I draw the attention of the House to the work of Dr. Phyllis Mollenix, the toxicologist at the Boston children's hospital in Massachusetts. Her work attempts to define a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride products and changes in brain activity that may give rise to hyperactivity and learning difficulties. Hon. Members may be aware of the work of Professor Shusheela,
  700
  who has tried to find a causal relationship between the presence of fluoride compounds in very small quantities and irritable bowel syndrome, anaemia, bone weaknesses, dental and skeletal fluorosis, genetic damage, still-birth and miscarriage.
  However, the medical establishment in this country is still wedded to the notion that fluoride compounds are good for us and should be put into the water supply. It is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the growing volume of evidence. That may be due to intellectual laziness, but if it is, it is strange that it is wedded to a campaigning zeal. Its unwillingness to consider the evidence goes back a long way. As far back as 1970, the British Dental Journal contained an article which stated:
  "Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not … as soon as dentists recognise their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding…the emphasis is on propagandising rather than education."
  I doubt that any of the Government's spin doctors could have put the point better. Indeed, it is an opinion of which Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.
  All I can say about my party's position on fluoridation is that it was inherited from the previous Administration. My party believes that there are benefits from fluoridation—a view I regard as curious—but the decision to add fluoride compounds to the water should be taken locally. I believe that it should be taken at a very local level—by the consumer. Whether any meaningful locality could be defined for the purposes of a water supply is problematical.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for opening up the debate on this subject. He has asked the medical establishment—the British Medical Association in particular—to produce new evidence to prove that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, and that they are not bad for us. I welcome his initiative but, when surfing the internet, I noted that the website of the pro-fluoridation lobby names him as one of its supporters. As I understand it, that is not his position, and I urge him to correct that.
  The medical establishment clings to the tenuous belief that fluoride compounds are good for our dental and general health, despite the fact that the evidence is pretty thin. If fluoride compounds attack the bacteria that would otherwise decay our teeth, it is probably because they attack all living organisms, including us. I cannot imagine why any mammal would ingest fluoride compounds. They are pollutants and are increasingly evident in our environment largely as a result of industrial and agro-chemical processes, such as fertilisers. We should make strenuous efforts to remove those compounds from our environment rather than add another source. If we add fluoride to our water, it will be in our milk; it will be in our cereals; it will be in our vegetables; it will be in our soup; it will be in our tea; it will be in our beer.
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore conclude that chlorine should

  701
  not be added to water, because it is nasty? Chlorine is clearly a poison, which kills living things, including bacteria.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I sought an Adjournment debate so that I could speak about the addition of fluoride compounds to the water supply. I am uniquely unqualified to follow the direction in which the hon. Gentleman wishes to lead me. I shall merely say that I have the benefit of swimming a quarter of a mile in the Serpentine every morning, and that, fortunately, for most of the year chlorine is not added to the water—and very healthy it is.
  It would be legitimate for the advocates of fluoride compounds to ask, "Where are the casualties? Where are the sick children, and the sick elderly people, who must be consequences of the fact that fluoride compounds are added to 10 per cent. of our water supply?" I would answer that question with another question: "What resources has the Minister's Department—have we—put into identifying the victims? What new studies have we initiated to update ourselves about evidence of the damage that is being done by fluoride compounds?"
  In that context, let me draw attention to the findings of Dr. Schatz. Dr. Schatz is no ordinary physician: he discovered streptomycin. In 1993, Dr. Schatz said that artificial fluoridation
  "may well dwarf the thalidomide tragedy, which was dramatic because it produced crippled children who are living testimonials to what that drug has done. Many victims of artificial fluoridation, on the other hand, die quietly during the first year of their lives, or at a later age under conditions where their deaths are attributed to some other cause."
  I urge any water authority and any water company seeking to acquiesce to a health authority's suggestion that fluoride should be added to water to bear those words in mind. I urge the Minister to consider them before introducing any measure that would ensure that my constituents and their children had to drink water to which fluoride compounds had been added.
  10.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing a debate on the important issue of improving oral health, especially that of children. As we have heard, the subject provokes forceful reactions both for and against the fluoridation of water supplies, and I think it important for me to discuss it in the broader context of public health.
  The country has seen dramatic improvements in health over the past 50 years, and that includes oral health. Along with the key role played by the dental profession, the addition of fluoride to both toothpaste and water has made a significant contribution to reducing the amount of dental decay, especially in children. That is in line with the first of two key aims that we set out in our consultative Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation":
  "to improve the health of the population as a whole".
  However, we cannot be complacent. More than half the country's 15-year-olds still experience decay in their permanent teeth. Significant inequalities remain in the oral health of the population.
  For example, in 1995, five-year-olds in the west midlands had, on average, less than half the number of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth of those in the
  702
  north-west, and 19 per cent. more five-year-olds in the west midlands had no tooth decay at all compared with their counterparts in the north-west. A similar picture emerges when we look at 12-year-olds and their permanent teeth.
  Above all, all other things being equal, the worst off in society have the poorest oral health. The Government are determined to change that and to narrow the health gap—the second key aim in "Our Healthier Nation". That was also the main theme of the recently published report of the independent inquiry into inequalities in health, which was led by Sir Donald Acheson, former chief medical officer at the Department of Health. The commissioning of that report by the Government should be viewed as a measure of our determination to tackle inequalities in health.
  The great challenge for local health authorities is how to improve oral health generally and how to tackle those inequalities in health status. Reducing inequalities in dental health will not be easy. In some places, there is a history of sporadic dental attendance. Many people visit a dentist only when they are in pain. They may not maintain regular brushing regimes with fluoride toothpaste. Some children do not even possess a toothbrush.
  That is why proposals are made to fluoridate the water supply in areas with high dental decay. The evidence shows that fluoridation of the water supply to the optimum level of one part per million can reduce the amount of tooth decay in children from similar backgrounds by one third to a half.
  In this country, about 500,000 people receive water that is naturally fluoridated at, or about, the optimum level of one part of fluoride per million. A further 1 million people receive water that is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but that still confers some dental benefit. Those areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country from Hartlepool in the north to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Major schemes operate in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands, and in Tyneside.
  The Government are aware of the persuasive evidence that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. In "Our Healthier Nation" we quoted the example of Sandwell. The water supply there was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children more than halved. During the same period, Oldham, an area with a comparable population mix and no fluoridation, saw little change in children's oral health.
  That example has been replicated in many other places over the past 50 years. Sadly, it is also true that, where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn—in Anglesey and in Kilmarnock, for example—levels of tooth decay in children have risen, after having fallen during periods of fluoridation.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the Minister believe that mass fluoridation ever has any adverse side effects? Is he prepared to commission new modern evidence that will assess both sides of the argument?
  Mr. Denham: If hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I was just going to turn to the scientific evidence and the issues that we need to consider.

  703
  I acknowledge that some people have concerns about the safety of fluoride. It is important to examine carefully any claims that risks may attach to fluoridation, as well as the benefits.
  On the overall question of safety, it is unfortunately true that virtually all medical and public health intervention carries risks as well as benefits. On fluoridation, it is for scientists—specialists in toxicology and dentistry—to advise on the balance of those risks to the benefits, and for Government to decide what is acceptable.
  The current position is that, over the years, many health problems alleged to be linked to fluoridation have been investigated and no link has been found. The most recent research in this country of which we are aware concerns a potential link with hip fractures. So far, that has also proved to be unfounded. There is yet to emerge any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially fluoridated water at one part per million. Indeed, it is estimated that, throughout the world, some 210 million people drink artificially fluoridated water.
  The view that fluoridation of water at that level is safe is that of the majority of medical and scientific opinion throughout the world, based on practical experience and research over the past 50 years. There is currently evidence of just one minor, cosmetic side effect of fluoridation—dental fluorosis, or slight tooth mottling. Where water is fluoridated at the optimal level of one part per million and parents follow the instructions on fluoridated toothpaste to ensure that children do not swallow excessive amounts, that is seldom noticeable. The teeth are still endowed with extra resistance. If someone is concerned about the cosmetic effect, dentists have several remedies. Often a satisfactory outcome can be achieved by the dentist who polishes the teeth. Within that context, the evidence on fluoridation is highly persuasive.
  Half a million people in Britain receive water that contains fluoride naturally present at a level close to or above the optimal one part per million, and 5 million people receive water supplemented to that level. The corresponding figures for the United States are 10 million people receiving naturally fluoridated water and 135 million people receiving supplemented water. Before and during the past half-century of fluoridation, there have been extensive studies of the health of those populations. Apart from improved oral health, the health experience of those receiving the optimal concentration of fluoride is no different from that of the population at large.
  As to whether artificially added fluoride would have a different effect on health from the naturally occurring chemical compound, I have been advised that the chemistry of the fluoride ion is identical at relevant concentrations. The effects on levels of fluoride in blood, bone and urine, and the effects on teeth and bone, are identical. Therefore, we can learn from studies of populations who have been exposed to high concentrations of fluoride present naturally in drinking water for generations.
  Too much fluoride can, of course, be harmful—just as too much oxygen, too much water or too much of some vitamins can be harmful. The experience on the Indian
  704
  sub-continent, where much drinking water comes direct from wells dug locally, reinforces the need for the rigorous controls that we have on water purity in the United Kingdom.
  It is impossible to say precisely at what concentration fluoride poses a risk to health, but fluoride at the optimal concentration of one part per million has always been present in some water supplies. All the evidence from the United Kingdom, and other countries practising fluoridation, indicates that the total intake from such water, together with that from food and beverages such as tea, is harmless.
  I should like now to deal with the process by which decisions on fluoridation are taken, and answer the question on research asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has a bit of time left. How extensive would the adverse side effects have to be before he would deem mass medication to be unacceptable?
  Mr. Denham: My understanding of the evidence—I have some scientific training, but not in this specific discipline—is that there is no evidence of harm giving rise to any question of deeming it to be unacceptable. I shall therefore decline the hon. Gentleman's invitation to take part in a hypothetical exercise. One should consider the scientific evidence that has been presented. Although millions of people drink water that has been fluoridated—either artificially or naturally—at one part per million, there is no evidence of damage to the health of those parts of the population.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: At what age do people realise the benefits of adding fluoride to the water supply?
  Mr. Denham: The examples that I gave earlier in the debate show that fluoridation leads to significant improvement in the amount of tooth decay suffered by children. The Sandwell study suggests that, in the 10-year period after fluoridation began, the level of tooth decay in children more than halved. That is a significant change.
  The final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 87(1) of the 1991 Act states:
  "Where a District Health Authority have applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area."
  December's judgment in the judicial review, in which the Tyneside health authorities sought unsuccessfully to challenge Northumbrian Water's refusal to accede to their request to fluoridate their water, confirms that the Act has not worked. Since 1985, 55 health authorities in England—nearly half, taking into account the mergers that have taken place in the past 12 years—have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation, but none of those requests has been accepted. There have been no new fluoridation agreements since 1985, because none of the water companies has exercised their discretion to agree to a health authority's request. We said in the Green

  705
  Paper "Our Healthier Nation" that the legislation needed to be reviewed. The key issue is whether "may" should become "shall".
  We have been encouraged by the readiness with which water companies have said that they are prepared to look again at the legal and practical problems of fluoridation. What they most want is clarity over the distribution of responsibilities. They have emphasised that their primary duty is to provide a sufficient and wholesome supply of water. They consider that the question whether a water supply should also contribute to wider public health objectives should be for the health service to decide. Should a fluoridation scheme be approved, the health service should meet the operational costs and indemnify the water operator against any unforeseen cost consequences. There is little in those arguments with which we disagree. We shall seek the views of the water industry on any proposals for legislative change.
  Mr. Duncan: How does the Minister define an unforeseen cost consequence? Will he undertake that "may" will not become "shall" during this Parliament, given that the proposal was not in his party's manifesto?
  Mr. Denham: I was about to explain how we intend to proceed. The Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", which we published last year, initiated a consultation on oral health and fluoridation. The responses were overwhelmingly positive. The great majority took the view that no other oral health promotion measure would be as effective in reducing inequalities in dental health as the fluoridation of water in areas with high levels of tooth decay.
  However, there were also comments from people opposed to fluoridation, mirroring some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest, West. Some commentators questioned the effectiveness of
  706
  fluoridation and, together with a larger group, argued—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton persists in interrupting. I was merely pointing out that the water companies have said that the health service should meet the operational costs and indemnify the water operator against any unforeseen cost consequences.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No. I have given way many times and I have only a short time to go.
  Mr. Duncan: It is my hon. Friend's debate.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted consistently. I must press on towards the end of my remarks.
  Some commentators questioned the effectiveness of fluoridation. They joined a larger group of those who suggested that its safety was in doubt. A few were also opposed on the grounds that mass medication was unethical. I have acknowledged the breadth of views and representations from the water industry and others. We are considering all those views carefully in drawing up a policy statement to be included in the forthcoming public health White Paper planned for the spring.
  I am not able to answer all the points that have been raised this evening, many of which will need to be addressed in response to that consultation process. The White Paper will take full account of the sensitivity of this issue, the potential benefits to dental health and the importance of building a consensus on clearly established evidence for the safety and effectiveness of fluoride.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TREASURY

  Employee Transport
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have been assessed by the Inland Revenue as providing a taxable benefit in kind by virtue of the provision to employees of(a) free work-to-home or home-to-work transport and (b) stage carriage bus services; and what estimate he has made of (i) the total tax receipts and (ii) the total employee mileage in each case for the last five years for which information is available. [67691]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the information requested is not collected centrally within Inland Revenue.

  Hon. Member for Coventry, North-West
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he took to investigate the business background of the previous Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), at the time of his appointment as Paymaster General. [67331]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: All Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister. The previous Paymaster General, like all Ministers of the Crown, was required to act in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Energy Efficient Products (Price Incentives)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what price incentives the Government support to encourage consumers to purchase energy efficient products. [67966]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 1 July 1998 a reduced VAT rate of 5 per cent. was introduced for the installation of certain energy saving materials under Government funded grant schemes. The reduced rate is targeted at the less well-off.

  So far, over 135,000 people have benefited from Government-funded incentive schemes run by the Energy Saving Trust to encourage consumers to install energy efficiency measures. Current schemes include incentives to install insulation, efficient heating, efficient lighting and appliances and small scale Combined Heat and Power.

  The Government's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provides grants for energy efficiency measures for householders receiving income related benefits, disability allowance, or who are over sixty years old. HEES has helped over 2.5 million households over the last seven years.

  VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will table a replacement VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order. [67954]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are seeking comments on the draft VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 with a view to the Order being laid before the House soon.

  Corporation Tax (Football Clubs)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual corporation tax revenue received from football clubs. [67947]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax assessments for accounts to 1996 indicate that the total corporation tax liability of football clubs is between £5 million and £10 million.

  VAT
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 286, relating to VAT receipts, if he will indicate the amount of the £1.1 billion revenue relating to civil engineering projects. [67972]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to distinguish between VAT revenue relating to buildings and that relating to civil engineering works.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will announce the outcome of HM Customs' review of the VAT exemption for charity welfare to include home help services; and if he will make a statement. [69047]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to be able to announce today the conclusion of the consultation. Routine domestic tasks provided by charities on a not for profit basis are VAT exempt welfare services when an assessment has been carried out which shows that there is a risk to recipients' physical or mental health or welfare because they are unable to carry out the tasks safely or adequately, or without significant pain or discomfort. Customs will be publicising the details.

  VAT Refunds
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list latest estimates and forecast expenditure in cash terms for VAT refunded to general Government for each of (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [68387]

  Mr. Milburn
  Estimates and forecasts for VAT refunds, consistent with the Pre-Budget Report, are given in a table headed "Accounting and other adjustments in table B12 of the Pre-Budget Report" in the answer given by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 18 November 1998,Official Report, columns 586–87.

  Government Capital Consumption
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list latest estimates and forecast expenditure for
  415
  the value of general Government non-trading capital consumption for each of (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02.[68386]

  Mr. Milburn
  Estimates and forecasts of general government non-trading capital consumption, consistent with the Pre-Budget Report, are given in a table headed "Accounting and other adjustments in table B12 of the Pre-Budget Report" in the answer given by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 18 November 1998,Official Report, columns 586–87.

  Tax Credits
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the regulations under which working families' tax credit and disabled tax credit will operate. [69048]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House drafts of the Tax Credits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations and of the Tax Credits (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations which contain the main provisions for the introduction of these new tax credits.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severely Disabled Children
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) financial and (b) other assistance is available to severely disabled under-fives who have difficulties in walking to allow access to the Motability scheme. [68697]

  Mr. Bayley
  Access to the Motability Scheme is via receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance, or War Pensioners Mobility Supplement. We recognise that Disability Living Allowance does not help with the mobility needs of severely disabled children under five years old, and this is why we have proposed extending the higher rate mobility component (currently worth £35.85 a week) to three and

  Capital limits

  Benefit/Capital limit

  As at April 1988

  At April 1998 prices1

  As at April 1990

  At April 1998 prices

  As at April 1998

  Income Support

  Lower Limit

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Upper Limit

  6,000

  9,221

  8,000

  10,398

  8,000

  Child's Capital

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Housing Benefit

  Lower Limit

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Upper Limit2

  6,000

  9,221

  16,000

  20,796

  16,000

  Upper Limit3

  8,000

  12,249

  —

  —

  —

  Child's Capital

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Family Credit

  Lower Limit

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Upper Limit

  6,000

  9,221

  8,000

  10,398

  8,000

  Child's Capital

  3,000

  4,611

  3,000

  3,899

  3,000

  Social Fund Regulated

  Under 60

  500

  768

  500

  650

  500

  Over 60

  1,000

  1,537

  1,000

  1,300

  1,000

  416
  four year olds to help combat the disadvantage which they suffer. The change is intended to take effect from April 2001. This help will be neither means-tested nor subject to a contribution condition, and it will be tax-free. It will also allow access to the Motability Scheme under the normal rules.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce annual adjustments to pensions for pensioners who now reside overseas; and if he will make a statement. [68520]

  Mr. Timms
  Of the 840,000 UK State pensions paid to people living abroad, about 380,000 already receive annual upratings. The total annual cost of unfreezing the remaining pensions paid abroad is £275 million. Due to competing demands and constraints on Social Security spending, in the UK there are no plans to do so.

  Tribunal Hearings (Travel)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the changes made to the mileage rate payable to(a) appellants, (b) companions, (c) witnesses and (d) unpaid representatives in tribunal hearings since 1 January 1979, indicating the date and amount of change in each case; [66482]

  (2) if he will list the changes made to the mileage rate payable to (a) tribunal members and (b) tribunal staff since 1 January 1979, indicating the date and amount of change in each case. [66483]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Capital Limits
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of capital limits if restored to their value at(a) 1988 prices and (b) 1990 prices. [67560]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  417

  Capital limits

  Benefit/Capital limit

  As at April 1988

  At April 1998 prices1

  As at April 1990

  At April 1998 prices

  As at April 1998

  Social Fund Discretionary

  Under 60

  500

  768

  500

  650

  500

  Over 60

  1,000

  1,537

  1,000

  1,300

  1,000

  1 At May 1988 prices for the Housing Benefit Upper Limit of £8,000

  2 Upper Limit at April 1988

  3 Upper Limit at May 1988

  Notes:

  1.The capital limits have been placed into real terms using the RPI (all items) index, not ROSSI

  2. As the question does not relate to uprating, real values have not been rounded

  London Organised Fraud Investigation Team
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what reason the offices of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team were re-opened on the 9 November, and who had responsibility for this decision; [67718]

  (2) for what reason the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team's offices were shut down and sealed between 12 October and 9 November 1998; and what was the purpose of the closure; [67755]

  (3) what proportion of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team was kept on full pay during the closure of their offices between 12 October and 9 November 1998; and what was the total cost of employing the unit staff during this period; [67720]

  (4) what action was taken during the closure of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team's offices to protect the evidence held there from being tampered with by those who had access to the premises during the period of closure; [67757]

  (5) how many of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team's cases which were pending on 12 October have been dropped since the offices re-opened on 9 November; and what are the reasons for these cases having been dropped; [67719]

  (6) who had access to the offices of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team during its closure between 12 October and 9 November 1998; what visits were carried out during the closure; and what was the purpose of each such visit; [67756]

  (7) whether any action was taken following the closure of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team offices against any employees of the unit; [67717]

  (8) what was the total cost of the closure of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team's offices between 12 October and 9 November 1998; [67721]

  (9) which ministers in his Department were aware of the decision to shut down and seal the offices of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team between 12 October and 9 November 1998; and who was responsible for this decision; [67754]

  Mr. Timms
  While this Department provides support, including funding, the Association of London Government (ALG) is responsible for the management of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team (LOFIT). The ALG established a management committee to carry out this function on which this Department had observer status.
  418
  Decisions on all aspects of the management of LOFIT, including access to the premises, finance and personnel matters and handling of outstanding cases, were for the ALG to make as the managing body. The decision to close LOFIT down was taken by the ALG. The Secretary of State and the then Minister of State were made aware of the ALG's decision.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will calculate the current proportion of the total population in receipt of one or more of the main income-related benefits. [68091]

  Angela Eagle
  As at May 1997, there were 7,990,000 recipients of one or more of the main income-related benefits in Great Britain. This represents 13.9 per cent. of the total population.

  Notes:

  1. Income-related benefits are Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Overlaps between benefits have been taken out.

  3. Caseload figure has been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  4. Numbers are based on benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  5. Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  6. Population is based on all residents in Great Britain at Mid-1997.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997—5 per cent. sample.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997—5 per cent. sample.

  3. Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997—5 per cent sample.

  4. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. scan of awards.

  5. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample of claimants without Income Support/JSA (IB), May 1997.

  6. Population Estimates unit, ONS.

  Income Support and Supplementary Benefits
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year since 1979 the proportion of(a) the total population and (b) lone parent families in receipt of (i) income support and (ii) supplementary benefits. [68108]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  419

  Percentage population who claimed income support or supplementary benefit and the number of these claims which were made by lone parents, for each year since 1979

  Year

  IS and supplementary benefit (prior to 1998) claimants (Thousand)

  Percentage of total population claiming IS or supplementary benefit (prior to 1988)

  Lone parents claiming IS or supplementary benefit (prior to 1988) (Thousand)

  Percentage of population who are lone parents claiming IS or supplementary benefit

  Percentage of lone parent population claiming IS or supplementary benefit

  1979

  2,855

  5.2

  306

  0.6

  36.5

  1980

  3,118

  5.7

  316

  0.6

  36.4

  1981

  3,723

  6.8

  369

  0.7

  41.0

  1982

  4,267

  7.8

  415

  0.8

  44.6

  1983

  4,349

  7.9

  449

  0.8

  n/a

  1984

  4,609

  8.4

  492

  0.9

  52.4

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  4,938

  8.9

  575

  1.0

  57.0

  1987

  4,896

  8.8

  629

  1.1

  59.9

  1988

  4,352

  7.8

  694

  1.3

  63.7

  1989

  4,161

  7.5

  756

  1.4

  65.2

  1990

  4,180

  7.5

  793

  1.4

  64.5

  1991

  4,487

  8.0

  871

  1.5

  67.0

  1992

  5,088

  9.0

  957

  1.7

  69.8

  1993

  5,643

  10.0

  1,013

  1.8

  70.3

  1994

  5,675

  10.0

  1,039

  1.8

  68.8

  1995

  5,670

  10.0

  1,056

  1.9

  67.7

  1996

  5,549

  9.7

  1,059

  1.9

  66.2

  1997

  3,958

  6.9

  1,014

  1.8

  n/a

  1998

  3,853

  6.7

  961

  1.7

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in April 1998.

  3. Data are not available for 1995.

  4. Numbers are given at a point in time. For 1979, the month was November. For 1980, to 1984 the month was December. In 1986 and 1996, the month was February and from 1987 to 1998, the month was May.

  5. Sample sizes: 1977–82 supplementary pension cases 1 in 200; supplementary allowance cases 1 in 50. 1983–87 supplementary pension cases 1 in 200, supplementary allowance cases 1 in 50. 1988–1993 1 in 100. 1994 to date 1 in 20.

  6. The numbers of income support and supplementary benefit claimants for the period prior to 1996 include claims for income support for the unemployed. In October 1996, jobseeker's allowance replaced income support as the benefit claimed by the unemployed. The figures from 1996 onwards therefore do not include any claims by the unemployed.

  7. The numbers of lone parents claiming income support for the period prior to 1996 may include claims by unemployed lone parents. The figures provided for 1996 onwards will not include unemployed lone parents.

  8. An estimate of the 1998 population of Great Britain has not published by the Office for National Statistics. We have therefore used the population estimate for 1997 when completing our calculation for 1998.

  9. LFS estimates subject to revision following released of Adjusted Household Database.

  Source:

  1. Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1979 to 1987.

  2. Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, 1988 to 1993.

  3. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries from May 1994 to May 1998.

  4. Population figures are taken from the Office for National Statistics, Estimated Resident.

  5. Population figures for 1979 to 1997.

  6. Population Trends.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that those pensioners who will be affected by the changes in SERPS inheritance will not be affected further; and what plans he has to amend these changes. [67915]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to alter those provisions of the Social Security Act 1986 which, from 6 April 2000, reduce inherited SERPS from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The previous Conservative Government introduced a number of changes to SERPS in the Social Security Act 1986 to reduce expenditure.

  2. The rationale behind this particular change was to bring SERPS in line with occupational schemes where inheritance of half occupational pension rights is the norm.

  3. The change does not take effect until 6 April 2000.

  420

  4. The halving of inherited SERPS was not widely publicised at the time. It was included in publicity about the Pensions Act 1995. From Spring 1996, information has been included in Leaflets NP46 (A Guide to Retirement) and NP45 (A Guide to Widows' Benefit). A bulletin has recently been issued to staff in the Benefits Agency to ensure that they are fully aware of the change and can advise claimants accordingly.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the responses to the consultation exercise on the reform of bereavement benefits; and if he will make a statement. [68915]

  Angela Eagle
  The consultation period ended on 13 January 1999 and 76 responses have been received. Thirty one were from organisations at national and local level, and local authorities. The rest were from individuals
  421
  including 3 from hon. Members. We thank all those who responded to the consultation document and can assure them that we are carefully considering the responses.

  A list of those who responded has been placed in the Library. Copies of this list and specific responses are available on request from The Widows' Benefit Consultation Team, 3rd Floor, The Adelphi, 1—11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT.

PRIME MINISTER

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. [68817]

  The Prime Minister
  The 1999 report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries, covering pay arrangements for the senior civil service, senior military officers and the judiciary, together with the annual uprating of Parliamentary salaries, has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and Members of the Pay Review Body for the work they have put into their report.

  In the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government made it clear that public sector pay settlements would need to be fair, affordable and consistent with the targets for public service improvements which we have set. The terms of reference of the Review Body on Senior Salaries were revised to ensure that, in making its recommendations, four key considerations set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review were taken into account:

  recruitment, retention and motivation of the groups concerned;

  the requirements on departments to meet their output targets for the delivery of services;

  the requirements on departments to stay within their three year expenditure limits; and

  the Government's inflation target, requiring responsibility in pay settlements across the public and private sectors.

  The main recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries are:

  an increase of 2.8 per cent. in the minimum and maximum values of each of the pay bands for the senior civil service. Within the bands, Departments will determine individual awards on the basis of performance.

  an increase of 3.3 per cent. in the maxima of the pay ranges within which individual salaries are set for senior military personnel.

  an increase of 3.5 per cent. in judicial salaries.

  The Review Body recommended that these increases should take effect from 1 April 1999.

  The Government are satisfied that these recommendations reflect the key considerations set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review and we have therefore decided to accept them. The additional cost of the recommendations will be contained within the Departmental expenditure limits announced in July and it remains the Government's intention to meet the objectives
  422
  and targets set out in the Public Service Agreements. This is in line with the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to public spending and their commitment to delivering high quality public services and low inflation.

  The Lord Chancellor will respond in the next few weeks to the Review Body's recommendations on the fee structure for part-time judiciary which, although included in this report, was an exercise separate from the Review Body's consideration of senior salaries.

  Pay increases for Members of Parliament and Ministers are linked automatically to the increase in pay bands for the senior civil service. Their pay entitlement from 1 April 1999 will therefore increase by 2.8 per cent. in addition to the 1.5 per cent. increase due as the deferred second stage of the 1998 pay award.

  The Review Body on Senior Salaries will produce shortly a further report on the pay of junior Ministers in the House of Lords, office holders in the devolved administrations and on certain aspects of Parliamentary allowances.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what opportunity will be afforded to asylum seekers who have been able to demonstrate that they have been the victims of unscrupulous advisers to establish their claims without their case being prejudiced by the actions of those advisers. [67115]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Any representations made in support of asylum claims are considered, even if they are received after an initial decision has been taken. Consequently, it would be open to any asylum seeker who considered that they had been poorly advised to inform the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at any time. This information would be treated on its merits.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of asylum application made between January 1985 and 1 July 1993 have been disposed of to date; and with what result. [67733]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is given in the table.

  Asylum applications made between 1 January 1985 and 1 July 1993 by status as at the end of 19981

  Case status as at 31 December 1998

  Granted asylum

  11%

  Granted exceptional leave

  43%

  Refused after full consideration

  28%

  Refused on 3rd country grounds

  1%

  Paragraph 340 refusal2

  17%

  Total decisions3

  125,800

  Undecided3,4

  6,600

  Total applications3

  132,400

  1 Percentages are estimates, rounded to the nearest whole number, based on cases for which information is recorded.

  2 Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  3 Rounded to the nearest 100, excluding dependants.

  4 New estimate of the number of pre-July 1993 asylum applications that remain outstanding.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67841]

  Mr. Straw
  The manner in which documents are produced and disseminated is decided upon by careful consideration of the individual merits and requirements of each publication.

  The Home Office has employed a number of alternative publication formats in recent years and it is now common practice to make White and Green Papers available via the Internet in a format that is accessible to the widest range of users.

  The Cabinet Office is currently producing guidance to Departments on the arrangements for production of White and Green Papers, as announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, on 27 January 1999, Official Report, column 296.

  Court Visits
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Crown courts, (b) magistrates courts and (c) youth courts he has visited in the last year. [67581]

  Mr. Straw
  In the last year I have visited one Magistrates Court and two Youth Courts as follows:

  1 May 1998: Oxford Magistrates Court

  8 September 1998: Youth Court Sitting at Uxbridge Magistrates Court

  16 September 1998: Youth Court Sitting at Bristol Magistrates Court

  20 November 1998: Blackburn Magistrates Court

  In addition, I attended and addressed five regional magistrates' meetings as follows:

  23 June 1998: North West in Blackburn

  23 July 1998: London and South East in London

  1 September 1998: Wales in Cardiff

  16 September 1998: South West in Bristol

  22 September 1998: North East in Newcastle.

  Offenders (Deaths)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many deaths of ex-offenders occurred within(a) one month and (b) six months of release from custody in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [67920]

  (2) what research his Department is undertaking into the number of deaths of former prison inmates which occur shortly after release from custody; and if he will make a statement; [67921]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of deaths, indicating separately self-inflicted deaths, of ex-offenders which occur shortly after release from custody; and if he will make a statement. [67919]
  424
  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information relates to people who are under probation service supervision following release from prison, which, in the case of those sentenced to less than 12 months, is on a voluntary basis:

  Number of deaths of those under supervision by the Probation Service

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Time between release and death

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Under one month

  26

  33

  34

  One month and under six months

  53

  47

  63

  Six months or more

  29

  21

  27

  The Department is not currently carrying out research on deaths following release from prison.

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy Act) 1998
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers included in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 have been used; on how many occasions; and if he will make a statement. [67922]

  Mr. Straw
  Records indicate that, as of today's date, no cases have come to court in the United Kingdom involving the use of the powers in sections 1–4 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 (concerning proscribed and specified organisations). However, investigations continue and use of the powers is of course, available for the future. As to sections 5–7 of the Act (conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom), information on their use is not collected centrally, but it is expected that data on convictions will begin to become available in Spring 1999.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in(a) COREPER and (b) other working groups of the Council of Ministers concerning the proposals of the European Parliament for changes to arrangements for elections to the European Parliament after 1999. [67931]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The European Parliament adopted proposals for Common Principles for elections to the European Parliament on 15 July 1998. These were considered by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) on 10 September and 9 December 1998 and referred to the General Affairs Working Group of the Council. Discussion there is continuing and the General Affairs Working Group will report to COREPER in due course.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the property owned by the Metropolitan Police Force which is currently for sale; what representations he has received on such sales; and if he will make a statement. [68048]
  425
  Kate Hoey
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that relevant information is updated monthly. As at 31 December 1998, the property for sale or planned for sale was:

  36 Abbotshall Avenue, Enfield

  20 and 24 Alverstone Road, Brent

  54 Beaconsfield Road, Epson and Ewell

  40 Beak Street, Soho

  65 Beaminster Gardens, Redbridge

  67 Belvedere Road, Bexley

  83 Beverley Gardens, Brent

  Biggin Hill Police Station

  37 Birchwood Grove, Richmond

  31 Blandford Road, Teddington

  33 Blandford Road, Teddington

  7 Boundary Way, Croydon

  28 Bow Street, Covent Garden

  156 Bridle Road, Croydon

  197 and 201 Broadwalk, Greenwich

  1–21 Broomfield Road, Poplar

  Bryn Conwy and Woodlands, Betws-y-Coed

  Bunns Lane (Site), Mill Hill

  128 Catford Hill, Catford

  22–24 Caxton Road, Wimbledon

  58A Cedar Drive, Harrow

  154 Central Road, Worcester Park

  18 Cheshunt Avenue, Richmond

  Chislehurst Police Station

  Collier Road Police Station, Havering

  1–27 Connaught House, Muswell Hill

  19 and 31 Cumberland Avenue, Havering

  1–6 Dinsdale Lodge, Wandsworth

  4 Downland Way, Sutton

  135 Dugdale Hill Lane, Hertsmere

  East Ham Police Station and Section House, Newham

  107, 113, 115 and 117 East Road, Chadwell Heath

  143 Ember Lane, Elmbridge

  Erith Police Station, Erith

  21 Fayerfield, Hertsmere

  8 Forest Edge, Epping Forest

  16 and 20 Frogmore Gardens, Hillingdon

  16 Glendale Mews, Bromley

  107 Goshawk Gardens, Hillingdon

  27 Griesdale Gardens, Croydon

  23 Grove Road, Harrow

  Ham Police Office

  4 Helgiford Gardens, Spelthorne

  250 High Street, Acton, W3

  Highbridge Street, Waltham Abbey

  18 Hilton Way, Croydon

  61 Horns Road, Redbridge

  7 Hycliffe Gardens, Epping Forest

  16 Jews Walk, Lewisham

  32 Kingsgate Avenue, Barnet

  151A Knollys Road, Streatham

  39 Lechmere, Epping Forest

  100 Linden Way, Enfield

  371 Lonsdale Road, Barnes

  426

  19–21 Lyon Road, Merton

  Manchester Road, Isle of Dogs

  182 Manford Way, Redbridge

  Maurice Drummond House, Greenwich

  St. Johns Hall, Monck Street, Westminster

  101, 111 and 135 Morton Way, Enfield

  81 and 95 Mount Pleasant, Barnet

  MRD Rowdell Road, Northolt

  71 Mungo Park Way, Bromley

  54 Neasden Lane, Harlesden

  14–18 Shepherdess Place, 7 Nile Street, Shoreditch

  Northumberland Park Section House, Tottenham

  7 Oakways, Greenwich

  355 Old Street, Clerkenwell

  Olwen House, Loman Street, Southwark

  Paul Breen Section House, Sydenham

  1–8 Priory Close, Spelthorne

  Putney Police Station and Section House

  Pen-y-Gwaith, Gwenned

  10 Ramilies Place, Soho

  55A-H Redcliffe Road, Kensington

  Rochester Row Police Station, Westminster

  28 and 30 Roke Road, Kenley

  1–11 Rosslyn Crescent/24–34 Station Road, Harrow

  4 Saxonbury Avenue, Spelthorne

  1 Southbourne Close, Harrow

  86 Sparrow Drive, Orpington

  17 Springfield Gardens, Bickley

  St. Ann's Road, Hounslow

  361–367A St. Margaret's Road, Isleworth

  403 St. Margaret's Road, Richmond

  St. Mary's Lane Police Station, Upminster

  Staines Police Station

  68 Station Approach, Hillingdon

  24, 32 and 36 Stratton Avenue, Sutton

  2 Stumps Hill Lane, Bromley

  175A Swakeleys Road, Uxbridge

  21 The Briars, Broxbourne

  1–6 The Close, Redbridge

  9–10 The Close, Redbridge

  3 The Green, Spelthorne

  2 and 4 The Oaks, Ruislip

  Tottenham Court Road Police Station, Camden

  27 Trewenna Drive, Hertsmere

  2 Turks Close, Hillingdon

  28–30 Wanstead High Street, Wanstead

  70 Waterfall Road, Enfield

  108 Watling Street, Bexley

  Welling Police Station, Welling

  West Hendon Police Station and adjacent land, West Hendon

  53A Westbury Road, Kingston

  58 York Road, Barnet

  The Prime Minister has received a Petition signed by many people, calling for Collier Row Police Station to be retained.
  427
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received several letters from Mrs. Burgess, and from an hon. Member on her behalf, about the proposed closure of Chislehurst Police Station.

  The Receiver tells me that in addition:
  "as to 28–30 High Street, Wanstead, following public objections to the sale of the site for redevelopment, a public inquiry took place in December 1998. The proposed purchaser's planning application has now been rejected; as to Manchester Road, Isle of Dogs, local residents are objecting to the sale of land adjoining a police office, for housing development; and
  as to 23–24 Station Road and 1–11 Rosslyn Crescent, Harrow, the members of a mosque adjoining the site have objected to the sale of land to a housing association by open tender as they wish to acquire the site for a mosque."

  Child Protection
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with police forces on their responsibility for bringing to the attention of local social services departments their concerns for the welfare and protection of children who might be at risk; and if he will make a statement. [67988]

  Mr. Boateng
  Home Office officials are involved in continuing dialogue with the Association of Chief Police Officers about issues of child protection.

  It has long been recognised that effective child protection work is best achieved through good inter-agency co-operation, a view most recently endorsed in the report of a thematic inspection of police child protection functions by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  "Working Together under the Children Act 1989—A Guide to arrangements for inter-agency Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse" provides guidance for inter-professional and inter-agency co-operation, including between the police and social services. That guidance is currently being revised following a consultation exercise last year. Both the police and social services are contributing to that work which is being led by the Department of Health.

  I am sure that the police are well aware of the need to bring to the attention of local social services departments any concerns they have about possible child abuse, in the same way that I would hope that social services would notify the police at the earliest opportunity when they come across a case which constitutes, or may constitute, a criminal offence.

  CID Officers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of putting CID officers into uniform for part of the working week. [68052]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is an operational matter for chief constables whether they make provision available for transfer of officers between Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and uniform duties, and the rotation of staff within specialisms, to allow for career development leading to a wider experience of policing.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to visit the PEO of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Lunar House. [67953]

  Mr. Straw
  I visited Lunar House on 28 November 1997 and on 14 September 1998, and my visit on 28 November 1997 included a visit to the Public Inquiry Office. I plan to visit Lunar House and other Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon, again when my diary permits.

  "From Murmur to Murder"
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the Commission for Racial Equality on the drafting of the "From Murmur to Murder" document. [68184]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. "From Murmur to Murder" was produced by the Midlands Probation Training Consortium on behalf of chief probation officers in the region.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the costs to the South Yorkshire Police Authority of funding the defence of David Godfrey Duckenfield and Bernard Dean Murray in the cases of Adlington v Murray and Adlington v Duckenfield in the Leeds Magistrates Court. [68223]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made no assessment. It is a matter for the South Yorkshire Police Authority to consider how to fund the defence of Mr. Duckenfield and Mr. Dean Murray and for the Chief Constable to allocate resources to the policing of the force area.

  I understand from the Clerk to the South Yorkshire Police Authority, that the Authority has set aside £500,000 for legal costs work in connection with Hillsborough. This sum has been taken from the authority's reserves. There has, therefore, been no immediate impact on the resources available for day to day policing.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) South Yorkshire Police Authority and (b) South Yorkshire Police about the adequacy of their grant settlement for 1999–2000. [68829]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received one letter from the Clerk to the South Yorkshire Police Authority raising a number of issues about the proposed funding settlement for the South Yorkshire Police in 1999–2000.

  City Status
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is next proposed to create city status in England; and if he will make a statement on the criteria for judging successful applicants. [68246]
  429
  Mr. Straw
  Her Majesty has said that she intends to mark both the Millennium and the 50th Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne, in 2002, by grants of city status to towns in the United Kingdom. City status is a rare mark of honour granted by Letters Patent; it is not a right which can be claimed by the fulfilment of certain conditions.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of changes in the incidence of graffiti over the past five years; [68458]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's initiative to prevent graffiti on public property; and what is his estimate of the annual amount of money spent on cleaning up graffiti on public property; [68455]

  (3) what plans his Department has to introduce a national or regional graffiti tackling squad. [68457]

  Mr. Boateng
  Graffiti is a form of criminal damage, which is recorded in the Home Offices Statistical Bulletin "Notifiable Offences". According to the Bulletin covering England and Wales, April 1997 to March 1998, there were 861,800 offences of criminal damage recorded in 1997–98, a fall of 8.2 per cent. on the previous year. The Bulletin does not give a sub-total for graffiti. It is not possible, therefore, to comment on the changes of incidences of graffiti over the past five years. Nor is it possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the amount of money spent on cleaning up graffiti on public property.

  The Government do, however, take this form of offence seriously. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where the value of the damage is more than £2,000, the maximum penalty is ten years' imprisonment for those over 18, and up to two years' detention in a Young Offenders Institution for those aged 15–17.

  The Government have no present plans for a national or regional graffiti tackling squad. One of the most effective ways of tackling crimes such as vandalism and graffiti is through co-ordinated preventative action at local level involving all of the relevant agencies such as the police, local authorities, schools and other voluntary bodies leading to a plan of action.

  The police and local authorities now have a statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to develop crime reduction partnerships. Where graffiti is identified as a major crime and disorder problem, we would expect the strategy to address it. The Act does not, however, specify what categories of crime and disorder must be included in the audit and strategy. This is a decision to be taken locally.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many successful prosecutions for insider dealing offences have been brought since 1986; [68140]
  430
  (2) if he will list the offences for which successful prosecutions for insider dealing have been brought since 1986. [68141]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available data taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database are given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for insider dealing1 offences, England and Wales, 1986–1997

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions2

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  1

  1988

  —

  —

  1989

  11

  2

  1990

  3

  2

  1991

  8

  2

  1992

  —

  2

  1993

  2

  2

  1994

  2

  2

  1995

  2

  —

  1996

  1

  —

  1997

  —

  —

  1 The legislation covering offences of 'insider dealing' for the period 1986 to 1997 includes Companies Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 which came into force on 1 July 1985 and was supplemented by provisions of ss173–178 of the Financial Services Act 1986; and Sec 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 which came into force on 1 March 1994.

  2 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  Police Grant
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the allocation of police grant in 1999–2000. [68825]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 179). The Report sets out my determination for 1999–2000 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority including the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law on electoral registration. [68796]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My Working Party on Electoral Procedures has recommended to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he should introduce legislation to provide a rolling electoral registration scheme. We are working up detailed proposals and examining other possible changes to the registration system.

  Prison Service (Quinquennial Review)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the Quinquennial Review of the Prison Service which he announced on 31 July 1998. [69049]
  431
  Mr. Straw
  The first two stages of the Quinquennial Review of the Prison Service have now been concluded and I am today placing in the Library copies of the Evaluation of Performance and the Prior Options Report. A revised Framework Document is being finalised and will be published shortly.

  The Evaluation of Performance concludes that since becoming an agency, and during a period of rising prison population, the Prison Service has achieved a remarkable turnaround in performance to which agency status has contributed for the following reasons:

  the delegated freedoms and flexibilities to the Director General;

  a focus on agreed outputs and targets for which the Director General is personally responsible to the Home Secretary; and

  a more cohesive organisation with a more visible Director General enables him to provide clearer leadership and to communicate with the organisation more effectively and to speak publicly for the Prison Service.

  The Prior Options Report reviews agency and other organisational options for the Prison Service and concludes that continued agency status offers the most appropriate and cost effective means of achieving Home Office aims. It notes and endorses the major agenda of work already in progress or planned as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Prison Probation Review. It notes the need for further work in the next period of agency status on contractorisation issues taking into account experience with tighter "contracts" between Headquarters and individual prisons and the overall contribution of the private sector to prison services.

  In the light of these findings, I am accepting the recommendation of the Prior Options Report that agency status should be reconfirmed.

  France (British Citizens)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has made in the last 12 months(a) through Interpol and (b) through other means to the French Ministry of the Interior concerning the handling of deaths of British citizens in France; and if he will make a statement. [68132]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to Mme Guigou, French Minister of Justice, on 4 August, stressing the importance of bringing to justice murderers of British nationals in France. On 30 November she met senior officials, in Paris, from the Ministry of Interior to discuss the handling of deaths of British nationals and to press for more vigorous investigations by the French authorities.

  On 21 and 29 April 1998, the Deputy Head of Mission at our Embassy in Paris, raised specific cases with senior officials from the French Ministry of Interior.

  Interpol London becomes involved in various aspects of cases involving death of British nationals abroad, particularly where crime is suspected. This is done on a case-by-case basis.

  Our Embassy in Paris continues to remind the French authorities of the importance we attach to investigating the death of British nationals in France.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Area Plans
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial and staff resources will be provided to the Planning Agency to undertake work on the area plan for Newry and Mourne; and when work will commence on it. [67752]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for these issues has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 29 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the commencement of work on the Newry and Mourne Area Plan.
  There is no individual Newry and Mourne Area Plan proposed rather, a combined plan for the Banbridge and Newry and Mourne District Council areas. The Development Plan Programme is currently under review, and will be approved by the Minister with responsibility for the Department of the Environment.
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the timing of commencement of the Banbridge/Newry and Mourne Area Plan has been decided.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when work is planned to commence on the new Down Area Plan; and what consultation will be held in respect of it. [67751]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for these issues has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 29 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the commencement of work on the Down Area Plan.
  I can confirm that work on the Ards/Down Area Plan commenced in December 1998. Throughout the Plan preparation process there will be opportunities for regular consultation with both Ards and Down District Councils in accordance with a programme to be agreed with each of them. There will also be ongoing consultation with a range of statutory consultees and, at key stages of the project, community groups, interested parties and members of the general public will also be consulted.
  I do hope this clarifies the position.

  Seamus Ludlow
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the RUC investigation into the murder of Seamus Ludlow in 1976; how many people have been questioned in the past 12 months; how many people have been charged; what representations she has received from the Irish Government; and what assessment the DPP has made of the feasibility of a trial within the Northern Ireland jurisdiction. [66486]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: Four persons were arrested and interviewed in February 1998; they were released without charge. A police investigation file in respect of the murder which was submitted by the

  433
  Chief Constable to the Director of Public Prosecutions in October 1998 remains under consideration. The Irish authorities are aware of the position.

  Firearms
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to consult outside bodies on regulations which are proposed as a result of the review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. [66815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The national shooting organisations and governing bodies of the various shooting sports have already made a valuable contribution to the review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 through the normal consultation process. Later this year, the Secretary of State intends to lay before Parliament a draft of a new Firearms Order. In line with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the proposed Draft Order in Council will be referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for their consideration. It will also be published and representations will be invited from all interested bodies.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the amount of farmland(a) converted, (b) under conversion and (c) considering conversion to organic; what assessment she has made of future trends in this area; and if she will make a statement on the geographical spread of such land. [67766]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  Converted: 176 hectares

  Under Conversion: 20 hectares

  Considering Conversion: 607 hectares

  The indications are that there will be a significant increase in the amount of land in NI under organic production over the next few years.

  It is, however, not possible to assess the geographical spread of such land although from the approaches from farmers considering conversion the interest is across a range of commodities and it is well spread across NI.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her Department's strategy for helping Northern Ireland's farmers to become organic; and if she will list her Department's current initiatives in this area. [67763]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There has been very little uptake of organic farming in Northern Ireland. In recognition of this situation, and in line with the Government's policy of encouraging more organic production, the Organic Farming Liaison Group (OFLG) was established to co-ordinate and pursue increased uptake of organic farming. The OFLG bring together officials from the Department of Agriculture with representatives of conventional and organic farming.

  The existing Organic Aid Scheme has been reviewed and increased rates of payment will be available during the first five years to those who enter conversion after 1 April 1998.
  434
  The Department of Agriculture provides advice and guidance to prospective organic farmers. It has developed organic production information packs and has made available a two day course entitled "Introduction to Organic Production" which aims to provide basic information for farmers and growers, who are potentially interested in converting to organic production.

  I am pleased to record that, in recent months, there has been a marked increase in interest from conventional farmers and a number have submitted applications for registration of land for organic conversion. This interest has been across a range of commodities and from various parts of NI.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the report issued on 11 January which was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security on lone parents and employment in Northern Ireland; and what action she will take in respect of the recommendations made. [67750]

  Mr. McFall
  The report "others on Benefit" is the most detailed investigation ever undertaken in Northern Ireland into the obstacles that lone parents face when considering taking up work. It will make a very useful contribution to the development of the wide range of services that are needed by lone parents in Northern Ireland.

  Many of the recommendations and conclusions reached in the report are being addressed under the New Deal for Lone Parents, the National Childcare strategy, the current review of the child support maintenance system and the proposed introduction of Working Families Tax Credit to replace Family Credit from 5 October 1999. I have arranged for copies of the report to be widely distributed so that its recommendations can be taken into account in the provision of future services for lone parents.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the UN Committee Against Torture in respect of the use of plastic bullets for riot control. [67999]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: Plastic baton rounds are used by the police and Army in Northern Ireland only where life or property is at risk, and provide a means by which police officers and soldiers can protect themselves when under attack. Ideally, it would not be necessary to use them: if there were no violent disorder then there would be no requirement to deploy plastic baton rounds.

  The nature and scale of public order situations which can arise in Northern Ireland and the threat of terrorist attack often prevent the security forces from attempting to control rioters at close quarters. Plastic baton rounds have allowed the police and the Army to keep a distance between themselves and other lethal missiles. Alternatives methods of riot control have been employed and considered but have generally proved less effective in Northern Ireland conditions.
  435
  While the Government acknowledge that the use of plastic baton rounds give rise to considerable controversy, no-one has yet been able to suggest a viable alternative which meets the operational needs of the security forces.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Nairobi Office
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total annual cost to her Department of its office in Nairobi; and if she will break down the figures into(a) staff and (b) other costs. [68097]

  Clare Short
  The total annual cost of the DFID Eastern Africa office in Nairobi is £2.87 million. The office is responsible for both the policy and implementation of development programmes for Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania to a combined value of £132 million (1999–2000).

  The estimated costs for 1999–2000 are broken down as follows:

  (a) Staff costs including house and other personnel overheads: £2 million

  (b) Other costs including office accommodation equipment, travel, etc: £870,000

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department's budget in the financial year 1999–2000 includes any expected proceeds from the sale of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [68086]

  Clare Short
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 301. There was no expectation of any proceeds in 1999–2000. As I have made clear, the figures for the development budget announced at the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review took account of some of the anticipated proceeds in subsequent years from the sale of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. However, if the proceeds were not realised in full, the development budget would nevertheless be maintained at the levels announced for 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Commonwealth Development Corporation will take to increase its return to investors following the introduction of the public/private partnership arrangements. [68102]

  Clare Short
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) intends to achieve an increase in its investment returns, in part, through continuing the shift to equity investments. CDC's method of working, which relies on close management of equity positions, also improves its ability to identify and pursue good investments.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the need for post-trauma counselling in Rwanda. [68101]
  436
  Clare Short
  We have not been directly involved in assessing the need for post-trauma counselling although other donors, including United Nations Children's Fund, have been involved in this important area. Rwanda is a deeply traumatised society. The Rwandan Government's reconciliation agenda recognises this. The partnership we are developing with the Government is focused on the provision of long-term, flexible financing in support of this agenda. The objectives of our support are set out in my letter of 26 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Somalia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian needs arising in Somalia. [68100]

  Clare Short
  The UN 1999 Consolidated Appeal for Somalia estimates that at least one million people will need emergency assistance, of whom more than 300,000 are at high risk. The main challenge is to prevent the deteriorating food situation in the south developing into a famine. I have recently agreed a £300,000 contribution towards United Nations Children's Fund supplementary feeding programmes in the area. The EC have provided 10,899 metric tonnes of food at a cost of £6 million which includes a UK contribution of £1.2 million.

  The World Food Programme have sufficient food stocks to last until March and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people were employed directly by her Department on(a) 1 September 1998 and (b) 1 January 1999. [68084]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development employed directly the following:

  Date

  Numbers of staff

  (a) September 1998

  1,095

  (b) January 1999

  1,130

  These figures do not include staff employed on contract terms both in the UK and overseas.

  Sudan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking in response to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. [68099]

  Clare Short
  We have continued to be a key donor to the 1998 crisis. The World Food Programme currently holds enough stocks until the end of March. We have pressed the UN system to increase efficiency and effectiveness by producing an appeal for 1999 which is realistic and focused on humanitarian priorities and which makes full use of all delivery methods. The UN 1999 Consolidated Appeal was issued last week and we will
  437
  discuss it with other multilateral and bilateral donors at a meeting of the Operation Lifeline Sudan International Advisory Committee on 12 February.

  We continue to press all parties to the civil war in Sudan to come to a negotiated settlement. Peace is the only long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what responsibilities which her Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by her Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to her Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68408]

  Clare Short
  The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) looked rigorously at all of the Department's programmes to ensure they met the new Government's objectives. Changes were made to ensure that our resources are focused more explicitly on the overarching goal of eliminating poverty. Specifically:

  (a) programmes and projects which did not meet our objectives were ended. For example, the Aid and Trade Provision.

  (b) We concluded that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) should take full responsibility for the grant in aid to the British Council, previously shared between the Department for International Development (DFID) and FCO. This responsibility and expenditure provision has been transferred.

  (c) Nil.

  (d) The CSR endorsed the enhanced role for (DFID) set out the Government's White Paper on International Development. This includes promoting consistency in UK and international policies which affect poorer countries. In addition, the Department now gives greater emphasis to working with the international community towards agreed goals and to efforts to improve the effectiveness of the international system.

  Colombia (Earthquake)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to help the people of Colombia following the earthquake. [68569]

  Clare Short
  Our programme of support to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs helped ensure that these agencies moved speedily to conduct initial damage and needs assessments following the severe earthquake on Colombia on 25 January. We have responded quickly to the appeal for assistance from the Government of Colombia by contributing US$1 million through humanitarian agencies. In addition, the European Community's Humanitarian Office has contributed $1.25 million, of which the UK share is $187,500.

  Our funds are supporting the Pan-American Health Organisation to enable the deployment of epidemiology specialists, conduct damage assessment to health facilities, water and sewerage infrastructure and purchase medical supplies; the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to bring life-saving assistance to 100,000 people; Oxfam for a programme to provide drinking water for 80,000 people, as well as emergency shelter and household utensils, concentrating particularly on the poorer districts of the city of America and outlying
  438
  towns; and United Nations Children's Fund to cover the immediate needs of children including those orphaned or separated from their families. Funds allocated to the British Embassy are providing urgently needed medicines and chemical toilets.

  Inevitably a catastrophe of this nature and magnitude creates practical and logistical problems on the ground. Therefore, it is important that the relief is carefully targeted and effectively coordinated. We continue to work with the humanitarian agencies in Colombia and elsewhere to strengthen the international system to be better prepared and more effective in responding to disasters.

  We are continuing to monitor the situation closely and remain ready to offer further assistance in Colombia to help with unmet priority needs that may emerge in coming days.

  Nicaragua (Hurricane Mitch)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance given by her Department to the relief effort in Nicaragua since Hurricane Mitch. [68454]

  Clare Short
  We have provided a grant to United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) for emergency repairs to water and sanitation infrastructure, and have agreed in principle a further grant to UNICEF to help restore primary health and education services. Regionally, we have given grants to the Pan-American Health Organisation to support national health authorities, principally for epidemic control, and to the United Nations Development Programme to support co-ordination.

  We were instrumental in setting up the Trust Fund to help countries affected by Hurricane Mitch meet their debt service payments to international financial institutions, and have committed £10 million to this purpose. Together with other members of the Paris Club, the UK Government have agreed to a moratorium on Nicaragua's debt service payments for the next two years.

  Coral Reefs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to aid the preservation of coral reefs since 1 July 1998. [66996]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 21.

SCOTLAND

  Ward Beds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ward beds were available in Edinburgh in 1995; how many ward beds will be available in Edinburgh upon the completion of the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary; and what were the service costs for the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary for each of the years between 1990 and 1995. [65957]
  439
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The average number of available staffed in-patient beds in hospitals in the city of Edinburgh in 1995 to 1998 and the proposed number from 1999 to 2003 when the new Royal Infirmary will be completed are set out in the table.

  Year1

  Acute beds2,3

  Non-acute beds4

  Total beds

  1995

  1,901

  2,591

  4,492

  1996

  1,806

  2,516

  4,322

  1997

  1,631

  2,462

  4,093

  1998

  1,621

  2,259

  3,880

  1999

  1,623

  2,269

  3,892

  2000

  1,623

  2,321

  3,944

  2001

  1,617

  2,313

  3,930

  2002

  1,617

  2,313

  3,930

  2003

  1,557

  2,264

  3,821

  The running costs for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for each of the years between 1990 and 1995 are set out in the table.

  £000

  Year ending 31 March

  Total hospital running costs5,6

  1990

  48,984

  1991

  51,584

  1992

  66,169

  1993

  75,295

  1994

  88,780

  1995

  86,777

  1 Information provided by Lothian Health Board.

  2 Lothian Health Board's Acute Services Strategy proposes new patterns of health care and an increase in the provision of community health care services. The proposed number of acute beds (1999 onwards) has been determined by hospital doctors.

  3 1995–97 data for acute services include winter beds.

  4 Lothian Health Board has been transferring resources to local authorities to provide 843 places in the community by the year 2003. These places are included in the non-acute bed numbers.

  5 Total hospital running costs reflect hospital operating expenses after netting off re-charges.

  6 There have been service transfers and some re-organisation at this site during the time period, including a change from Directly Managed Unit to Trust status.

  Notes:

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

  Lambs (Tagging)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the welfare implications of the requirement that farmers tag or tattoo all lambs for sale; what representations he has received on this issue; what discussions he has had with the European Union about this requirement; what estimate he has made of the additional cost to Scottish farmers of this requirement; what is the legal basis for this requirement; and for what reasons the requirement is being introduced. [68002]

  Mr. Macdonald
  EC Council Directive 92/102, which requires all sheep to be tagged or tattooed before they leave the holding of birth, was adopted in November 1992. The Directive requires Member States to establish a system of identifying and registering animals. The Scottish agricultural industry is being consulted on how best to meet this legal requirement. Questions about the practicality of unique tagging of animals, the costs 440
  associated with doing so and the necessary additional record-keeping involved have all been raised during the consultations and are under consideration. The flexibility allowed within the Directive as to when to apply the tag should help minimise welfare concerns. It is estimated that tagging sheep in according with the Directive could cost about approximately £2 million.

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

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of farmland(a) converted, (b) under conversion and (c) considering conversion to organic; what assessment he has made of future trends in this area; and if he will make a statement on the geographical spread of such land. [67765]

  Mr. Macdonald
  As at 31 December, there were 24,987 h.a. of converted organic land in Scotland as recorded by the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards and 4,124 h.a. of land in conversion. Latest data on the number of farmers in Scotland receiving payments under the Scottish Organic Aid Scheme to convert to organic farming methods indicate there are currently around 53,000 h.a. entered into the Scheme, fairly evenly spread across the whole of the country. It is not possible to give numbers of those considering conversion. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for helping Scottish farmers capitalise on the high demand for organic food in the UK; and if he will make a statement on current departmental initiatives in this area. [67748]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Farmers wishing to convert to organic farming methods can obtain assistance to do so from the Scottish Organic Aid Scheme and work is currently underway to introduce further improvements to the scheme. Assistance is also available to Scottish organic farmers to encourage better processing and marketing of their produce and organics are classed as a priority under the Scottish Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme. The Scottish Marketing Development Scheme is also available to help producers become more competitive and market orientated. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1999,Official Report, columns 233–34, on Dounreay what assessment he has made of the health dangers which could result from exposure of bait collectors to fuel fragments. [68139]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This matter was considered in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Report "Fragments of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel in the Dounreay Local Environment", which was referred to in the Answer of 14 January. That report took account of advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) which, in
  441
  turn, was informed by work carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE).

  The advice in the SEPA report was that the fuel fragments were not likely to affect the health of members of the public unless there was direct skin contact with, or accidental ingestion of, a fragment.

  The effect of contact or ingestion would depend on the nature and length of contact with, and the activity of, the fragment. In the event of accidental contact with a fragment the effect could be some blistering of the skin and possible infection, unless the contact was prolonged. The effect of ingestion would depend on the activity of the fragment and whether it passed through the body or lodged in the gut. The immediate effects could range from no detectable effect to severe gastro-intestinal illness. In the longer term, the risks of developing a cancer could be marginally increased. The annual probability of bait collectors within the intertidal zone at Sandside beach making skin contact with a fragment was estimated at 1 in 200,000 in the SEPA report. There have been no known cases of bait collectors or any other member of the public coming into contact with particles.

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

  NHSnet
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 518, on NHSnet, what assessment he has made of the number and proportion of hospital appointments being made through NHSnet; what the average waiting time is between placing a request for information on NHSnet and obtaining the information; and if he will make a statement. [68166]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government are committed to developing an electronic booking system by 2002 which will allow patients to know the date and time of any hospital outpatient appointment before leaving their GP surgery.

  At present electronic appointment booking is taking place at a small number of pilot sites while a number of key building blocks are put in place to deliver this commitment, including:

  Linking all NHS in Scotland organisations to the NHSnet

  Electronic links between GPs and hospitals enabling the fast secure transmission of messages between primary and secondary care

  Using the Community Health Index (CHI) number in all NHS computer bases systems to identify patients and relevant information about them whenever they are treated

  Training for health care staff to carry out tasks using information technology

  An appropriate form of assessment will be put into place as the system develops. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Hospital Locums
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of agencies which provide locums for temporary employment in hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [67982]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No assessment has been made of agencies which provide locums for temporary employment in hospital trusts. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to issue regulations governing the conduct of agencies which provide locums for temporary employment in hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [68340]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There are no plans to issue regulations governing the conduct of agencies which provide locums for temporary employment in hospital trusts. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Farmers (Bank Borrowing)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total level of bank borrowing by Scotland's farmers in each of the last 10 years; and what discussions he has had with the NFU and the Scottish clearing banks on this matter. [68003]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The only comprehensive survey of bank lending to Scottish agriculture is conducted annually by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department. The results for the last ten years, in both current and at 1998 prices, are given in the following table.

  Total advance to Scottish agriculture, 1989–98

  £ million

  Advances

  Year (end-May)

  Current prices

  Real terms 1998 prices

  1989

  909

  1,292

  1990

  888

  1,150

  1991

  884

  1,083

  1992

  895

  1,050

  1993

  868

  1,006

  1994

  893

  1,009

  1995

  893

  976

  1996

  941

  1,006

  1997

  966

  1,007

  1998

  1,064

  1,064

  As the table shows, bank borrowings, in real terms, are now lower than they were 8 to 10 years ago, as are real interest rates.

  Ministers and officials meet the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the agricultural representatives of the four Scottish Clearing banks on a regular basis to discuss a variety of issues affecting Scottish farming including the level of bank borrowings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Scottish NFU on 22 December 1998 while my noble Friend Lord Sewel last met them on 22 January 1999. Officials last met the banks on 25 January 1999.

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

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [68819]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The 1999 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for the work they have put into the report.

  In the Comprehensive Spending Review the Government made it clear that public sector pay settlements would need to be fair, affordable and consistent with targets for public service improvements we have set. The new arrangements announced in the CSR for the Pay Review Bodies were designed to ensure a closer and more effective link between pay settlements, departmental expenditure limits and service delivery targets. Under these new arrangements, the AFPRB now reports to me, as responsible Departmental Minister, as well as to the Prime Minister. The Terms of Reference of the AFPRB were revised to ensure that, in making their recommendations, four key consideration set out in the CSR were taken into account:

  recruitment, retention and motivation of the Armed Forces;

  the requirements for departments to meet their output targets for the delivery of services;

  requirement for departments to stay within their three-year expenditure limits;

  the Government's inflation target, requiring responsibility in pay settlements across the public and private sectors.

  The AFPRB has recommended an increase in basic military salary of about 3.5 per cent. for all ranks, with the exception of: Privates and Lance Corporals (and their equivalents) who should receive 3.6 per cent.; Lieutenants and Captains (and their equivalents) who should receive 3.7 per cent.; and Brigadiers (and their equivalents) who should receive 3.3 per cent. Additional Pay (eg Flying Pay and Submarine Pay) will also increase by 3.3 per cent.

  I am satisfied that these recommendations take account of the four key considerations and will support the Services' strategies to achieve full manning. The additional cost of this settlement will be contained within my Department's expenditure limits announced in July and we will continue to meet the objectives and targets set out in my Public Service Agreements. This is in line with the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to public spending and its commitment to delivering high quality public services and low inflation.

  The AFPRB's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 1999.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations the Government have had with other Governments on the subject of research and evidence of Gulf War Syndrome. [64997]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence continues to liaise closely with the US Government on all aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. These links are of 444
  particular importance because the USA has the largest population of Gulf veterans—some 700,000 US personnel deployed to the Gulf in 1990–91—and there is a substantial federally funded research programme underway there.

  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), visited the US in October 1997 to discuss Gulf veterans' illnesses issues and I intend to visit the US myself later this year to see at first hand how the US Government are responding to this complex and difficult problem and to discuss the way forward. The MOD has a full time Gulf Health Liaison Officer based in Washington, who works on a daily basis with US federal agencies and research teams. In addition, the UK is represented on the US Persian Gulf veterans Co-ordinating Board Research Working Group, which oversees all US federal research looking at Gulf veterans' illnesses, in order that the UK can have full visibility of that research, both to keep abreast of the latest developments and to avoid duplication of effort. In the course of dealing with this subject, MOD officials have also discussed Gulf veterans' illnesses issues with officials and researchers from a number of other counties, including France, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark.

  The MOD continues to monitor all published research which may be relevant to the issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses. In June last year, my Department announced that it would be funding an independent systematic literature review of worldwide published research relating to Gulf veterans' illnesses. The review, commissioned through the Medical Research Council (MRC), will be carried out over a period of 3 years by a team led by Professor Glyn Lewis at the University of Wales School of Medicine in Cardiff. The findings of the review will be published at six-monthly intervals. An initial report to the MRC is expected in the Spring, with the first full report likely to be published in Autumn.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Gulf War veterans have subsequently tested positive for depleted uranium poisoning having not exhibited symptoms during examination by Medical Assessment Programme physicians which indicated a requirement for a specific referral to another agency or organisation for depleted uranium testing. [65974]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In general, the Ministry of Defence has no knowledge of any tests, including those to detect the presence of DU, which may have been carried out on Gulf veterans independently of the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP), through other organisations providing medical or radiological services. However, the Ministry of Defence is aware that a US physician is reported as having carried out tests for the presence of DU on some UK Gulf veterans. So far, however, my Department has not received any details of the methodology behind the tests which have been performed or of the results reportedly obtained. Hence, at present, the MOD is not able to comment on these reported findings.

  Nevertheless, as I explained in my reply of 16 December 1998, Official Report, column 521, I have asked my officials to collate the information which the

  445
  MOD possesses concerning mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I expect to publish this work shortly, and shall make arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the standard battery of tests routinely carried out on Medical Assessment Programme patients does not include a specific test to detect depleted uranium. [65973]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The medical programme which became the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) was set up in July 1993 in order to examine veterans who were unwell and who believed their illness was related to their service in the Gulf. The intention was to provide a diagnosis wherever possible and to document all illness in veterans referred to the Programme. A veteran referred to the Programme was examined by a Consultant Physician and a number of tests and examinations were carried out. This essentially remains the case today.

  When the Programme was first established, Wg Cdr (now Gp Capt) Bill Coker (who ran it until December 1996) initially carried out those tests he felt necessary on clinical grounds to establish a diagnosis. When the number of patients referred to the MAP increased, he carried out a number of screening tests, similar to those then used by the US Department of Defense's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme (the US DoD's equivalent to the MAP). These screening tests did not include a test to detect the presence of uranium because Gp Capt Coker had not previously seen any features in patients to indicate that such testing was clinically necessary. The US experience had suggested that the urinary excretion of uranium was only significantly increased in those veterans with retained DU fragments. As MOD was not aware of any UK Service personnel who had sustained shrapnel injuries from DU-based ammunition, it was not thought appropriate to screen routinely for uranium excretion, although testing could be carried out on a case by case basis if clinically indicated. Any other tests considered clinically appropriate would also be performed, these additional tests varying from patient to patient. This system of investigation was in place at the time of the Royal College of Physicians' (RCP) clinical audit in 1995.

  The RCP's subsequent report, published in July 1995, endorsed the MAP's professional independence and integrity and made specific comments on how the Programme could be improved. However, with the exception of a recommendation concerning psychiatric assessments, the RCP did not recommend any changes to the tests and examinations carried out by the MAP.
  446
  The baseline tests currently carried out on MAP patients by St. Thomas' Hospital on the MAP's behalf are very similar to those which were in place at the time of the RCP audit in 1995. They are as follows:

  Full blood count and sedimentation rate (FBC/ESR)

  Full biochemical screen, including renal function tests (urea, electrolytes and creatinine) liver function tests (LFT), calcium and blood sugar

  Immunoglobulin analysis

  Creatine kinase

  Thyroid function tests (TFT)

  Serological screening tests

  Chest X-ray (CXR)

  Ultrasound abdominal scan

  Electrocardiogram (ECG)

  Urinalysis

  Peak-flow lung measurement (to determine the necessity for vitalography)

  A thorough audit of the MAP is currently under way. It is looking at all aspects of patient care and the service provided by the MAP. The range of tests and examinations currently undertaken at the MAP will be reviewed in the light of the results of this audit process.

  I should stress that the tests listed are only baseline investigations; additional and/or referrals to other consultants/specialists are sometimes required. Any tests which are considered clinically appropriate by the examining MAP physician, including those to detect the presence of uranium, will be arranged, as I explained in my reply of 16 December 1998, Official Report, column 521.

  In the same answer, I also announced that I had asked my officials to collate the information which the MOD possesses concerning mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I expect to publish this work shortly, and shall make arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research has been conducted into Aspartame as a possible cause of Gulf War Syndrome; [66676]

  (2) what evidence he has assessed of a possible link between Aspartame and Gulf War Syndrome. [66675]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence is aware that Aspartame, an artificial sweetener, has been suggested as a possible cause of the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of many such suggestions in this context and my Department is not aware of any published scientific evidence to support this theory. So far as the Ministry of Defence is aware, no specific research is being conducted to investigate a possible relationship between the consumption of Aspartame and Gulf veterans' illnesses.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if research on exposure of military personnel to organophosphates in the Gulf War has been completed; and whether it will be published. [67477]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  When it became apparent that organophosphate (OP) pesticides had been more widely used by UK forces during the Gulf conflict than had previously been thought, the Ministry of Defence carried out an urgent investigation into the circumstances in
  447
  which they had been used. The investigation team's report was published on 10 December 1996. Copies of this report were placed in the Library of the House. Broadly, the team found that OP pesticides were, in the main, used properly by personnel who are trained in the safe use of such products, including the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment.

  The Ministry of Defence is currently funding a programme of research into different aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. None of these studies is specifically aimed at investigating a possible relationship between exposure to OP pesticides and such illnesses.

  Research to investigate the effects of low level exposure to OP pesticides in the context of the health concerns of farm workers, funded jointly by the Department of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the Health and Safety Executive, is well under way at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. This will be an important step towards understanding the possible effects of potential exposures during the Gulf conflict. Final data analysis is currently taking place and the study as a whole is expected to be completed in April this year. The study team's report is expected later in the Summer. The MAFF is also currently funding a study at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at Porton Down to determine whether a low dose of the OP diazinon will give rise to adverse long term effects.

  RN Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultants, employed by his Department,(a) work and (b) are based for the majority of their time at the RN Hospital, Haslar. [65779]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency on 12 January 1999,Official Report, columns 146–47. All those listed are consultants with the exception of the Civilian Medical Practitioners, Specialist Registrars, Senior House Officers and Pre Registration House Officers.

  All those listed work and are based at the Royal Hospital Haslar for the majority of their time.

  Military Training
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the status of military schools and the means by which students in such schools are able to leave before completion of their studies; [66064]

  (2) if military training comes under Ministry of Defence regulations with respect to notice periods and payments. [66065]

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

  Astute Class (Submarines)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the crew number of the Astute Class of submarines. [66165]
  448
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The first 3 Astute Class submarines, out of a planned class of 5, are being designed and built under a Prime Contract awarded to GEC-Marconi in March 1997 with delivery expected in the middle of the next decade. Design work continues and the normal sea going complement is currently expected to be 98, although the submarine should be capable of taking up to 109 personnel to sea when required.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget has been allocated within his Department to deal with the millennium bug. [66881]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: The estimated additional cost of the total Year 2000 programme within MOD is £200m, which is being found from within existing defence provision by the rescheduling of other tasks. This sum does not include the cost of replacing or upgrading systems as part of a planned program.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of his Department's systems are currently not millennium compliant. [66751]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: Work to date has concentrated on identifying which MOD equipments are critical to our Defence capability, and ensuring that these systems will be compliant. Currently, around 60 per cent. of such systems are reported as compliant and programmes are in place to ensure that the remaining business critical systems are made compliant in good time.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to provide single accommodation for all single service personnel. [66745]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: When we published the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review the supporting White Paper entitled "A Policy for People" stated that:
  "In future, new single accommodation will be built so that, in most instances, individuals of all ranks will be provided with a single room. There are plans in place now to raise the standard of some existing single living accommodation, and we have initiated a survey of all single living accommodation to inform our longer term aspiration to improve the whole estate."

  The Chief Executive of the Defence Estate Organisation is leading a study of the optimum approach to our single living accommodation improvement programme, which should report later this year. Our plans recognise the diverse needs and circumstances of our Service men and women and, whilst we aspire to single rooms for the majority, team-based accommodation may be more appropriate for some.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of the solvents which are used in CS sprays held by his Department. [67598]

  Mr. Spellar
  All the CS sprays currently held by the Ministry of Defence contain the solvent commonly known as methylene chloride.

  Non-lethal Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what co-operation there is between Britain and the United States of America on non-lethal warfare; how many collaboration agreements have been signed with the United States of America; what are the names of these agreements; when the agreements were signed and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [67599]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 18 November 1994, the UK and US Defence Secretaries signed a UK-US Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding on the subject of non-lethal weapons. The first information exchange, which covers "Non-lethal weapons systems", was signed on 2 February 1998.

  International collaboration agreements help to inform our decisions on future strategies and equipment, as well as improving interoperability with our Allies and coalition partners.

  Military Airfields (Private Companies)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances private companies may export goods by air from military airfields. [68197]

  Mr. Spellar
  A private company wishing to export goods requires prior permission from HM Customs if the aircraft is to fly to a non-EU country from any UK airfield. The same rules apply regardless of whether the airfield is military or civilian.

  Nitroglycerine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of the retention of a United Kingdom based capability to manufacture nitroglycerine. [68077]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are nitroglycerine manufacturing facilities currently operating at the Royal Ordnance factories at Summerfield and Bishopton. The retention of an indigenous capability to manufacture multi-based ammunition propellants, of which nitroglycerine is a part, were considered very carefully as part of the Modular Charge System contract decision.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the management of British Aerospace concerning the maintenance of a nitroglycerine manufacturing facility in the United Kingdom. [68078]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has met with the management of British Aerospace on a number of occasions since May 1997. The maintenance of a nitroglycerine manufacturing facility in the United Kingdom has not been a topic of discussion.

  Project ASH
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of Project ASH; to whom the contract was originally let; which companies have subsequently been involved; when the database and management aid for handling unexploded ordnance will be in service; and if he will make a statement. [68074]
  450
  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to date of Project ASH is around £2.7m including VAT. A contract for development and production was placed with EDS Defence Ltd. in November 1994. Other companies which have been involved are Bactec International Ltd., for database population, VEGA Group PLC, providing technical support to the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive, and Thompson-Thorn Missile Electronics Ltd., who are conducting work on training needs. Although ASH was accepted into service in October 1996, further work was required to be done to the database and for management aid for handling unexploded ordnance. Following user trials in February 1999 it is expected that an improved version of ASH will be accepted and subsequently deployed to Bosnia to assist Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams.

  Scottish Procurement
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in Scotland on defence procurement in the last year for which figures are available; how much of that was passed to sub-contractors(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of sub-contracted work which remains in Scotland. [68076]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD spent £550 million, VAT-exclusive; to the nearest £50 million, on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland during 1996–97. The MOD does not record payments made to sub-contractors and has not made an estimate of what those payments might be.

  Propellants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the munitions currently used by Her Majesty's forces which are propelled by products from Royal Ordnance, Bishopton; and what steps have been taken by his Department to secure supplies of propellants following the end of production at Royal Ordnance, Bishopton. [68080]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces use propellant produced at Royal Ordnance Bishopton to fire a range of 105mm and 155mm artillery projectiles and 120mm tank projectiles, the Naval 4/" Gun and rocket motors for the Royal Navy's Sea Wolf and Sea Skua missiles. It also produces raw propellant material used in a number of in-service missiles and small calibre ammunition manufactured at other locations. We have considered carefully the future supply of propellants currently made at Royal Ordnance Bishopton and are satisfied that, where necessary, sufficient and reliable alternative sources exist overseas to meet future MOD requirements should the facility close. Royal Ordnance remain responsible for meeting all its commitments under existing contracts with the MOD.

  Sully Hospital (Land Decontamination)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to authorise decontamination works on his Department's land at Sully Hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan; [67861]
  451
  (2) what assessment he has made of the health and public safety risks associated with (a) the contamination of his Department's land adjacent to Sully Hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan and (b) the works required to decontaminate that land; [67864]

  (3) what is the nature and extent of the contamination of his Department's land adjacent to Sully Hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan; [67860]

  (4) what assessment he has made of (a) the work required to decontaminate his Department's land adjacent to Sully Hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan and (b) its cost. [67862]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Land Quality Assessment is being commissioned by the Oil Pipelines Agency to determine whether the Ministry of Defence land adjacent to Sully Hospital is contaminated and, if so, the extent of the contamination. It is expected that the outcome of the Assessment will be known by the end of the year.

  Panzer Tank (Disposal)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons a German Panzer IV/70(V) was disposed of from the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, in August 1998; what other examples there are of this tank in other(a) national or local museums and (b) military establishments; and what was the disposal price of the tank. [68211]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham did not dispose of a German Panzer IV/70(V) tank in 1998. The only complete example of a Panzer MkIV in the UK held by us is at the Tank Museum, Bovington. The Imperial War Museum has a cut down (incomplete) example of the Panzer MkIV but neither is an example of the 70(V) variant (there are ten variants of the Panzer MkIV including the 70(V). There are no examples of the Panzer MkIV/70(V) held at military establishments.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Grants (Barnsley)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has which would increase the distribution of lottery grants to Barnsley. [66770]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I want Lottery money to address the needs of communities across the whole of the United Kingdom. I welcome the National Lottery Charities Board's designation of Barnsley as a priority area for Lottery funding and will follow the progress of this initiative closely. I have also launched with the distributing bodies an investigation into the reasons for low take-up of Lottery funding in coalfield areas.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received following his meeting with local authorities in Barnsley last autumn when the equalisation of National Lottery grants was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [66784]
  452
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Representatives from the coalfields areas have confirmed the need for action to address the problems these areas face in obtaining Lottery funding and have supported the measures announced at the Coalfields Lottery Conference to address the balance.

  I welcome the National Lottery Charities Board's designation of Barnsley as a priority area for Lottery funding and will follow the progress of this initiative closely. I have also launched with the distributing bodies an investigation into the reasons for low take-up of Lottery funding in coalfield areas.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Government plans for Channel 4. [66771]

  Janet Anderson
  Channel Four is a central element in the Government's vision for the broadcasting industry in the digital future. I expect it to continue to provide a vital role in providing distinctive and innovative public service programming of high quality.

  Architectural Design
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in implementing proposals to establish a national body to champion British architectural design. [66774]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have advertised for a Chairman for the new body. We have set up an Implementation Group of seven people which will be able to present its conclusions to the Chairman on his or her appointment. The new body should be fully operational in the autumn.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made by the policy action team on the contribution that sports and the arts can make to tackling social exclusion. [66775]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Policy Action Team 10, led by DCMS, has met on several occasions. The Team includes a number of people engaged in local projects tackling issues of social inclusion, and experts on specific issues such as funding, building partnerships and community development. The group has undertaken visits to successful arts and sporting projects which are combating social exclusion around the country. The Team will report in early summer 1999 on its findings.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he has given to the tourism industry in seaside resorts. [66776]

  Janet Anderson
  Of the £3.8 billion of Single Regeneration Budget funding available over the next three years, 44 of the bids included proposals for the regeneration of seaside resorts. But the future of our seaside resorts depends on all those involved in both private and public sectors working together to develop the sort of products now needed and with the quality and value for money which visitors expect.
  453
  Our strategy for tourism, to be published on 26 February 1999, addresses this important industry sector and will help create the right framework in which tourism can flourish.

  Departmental Spending (Administration)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reduce his Department's spending on administration. [66777]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is committed to reducing its running costs as a proportion of its Department Expenditure Limit (DEL).

  Public Art (Economic Regeneration)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the role of public art in economic regeneration. [66778]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council of England is currently carrying out an independent evaluation of Lottery funded public art commissions. I am in no doubt, however, of the ability of public art to improve the urban landscape, enhance local neighbourhood identity, encourage inward investment, create local employment and develop skills through programmes of participation, education and training.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Camelot's plans for the National Lottery in December 1999 and January 2000. [66779]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Decisions on licensing new Lottery draws and games are for the Director General of the National Lottery or, after 1 April 1999, the National Lottery Commissioners. I understand that the Director General has not received any applications from Camelot to run new Lottery games in December 1999 or January 2000.

  School Sport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the playing of sports in schools. [66794]

  Mr. Banks
  Sport in schools is essential for a broad and balanced education to which all children are entitled.

  I want schools to provide more opportunities for their pupils to take part in sporting activities. It is important that young people have access to a range of physical activities within and beyond the school curriculum.

  Sport in schools is a key feature of our sport strategy paper and we are collaborating with the Department for Education and Employment, who have sole responsibility for the National Curriculum, to determine how school sporting activities can best be focused and supported. We have invigorated a range of initiatives to achieve this; these include the Sportsmark award scheme for high quality school sport, a new scheme for primary schools, the Sporting Ambassadors programme of visits to schools by prominent sportsmen and women and Study Support
  454
  for example in Premier League Football Clubs. We have also fed into the current review of the National Curriculum by the QCA.

  Arts (Access)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what policies his Department is pursuing to increase access to the arts for people on modest incomes. [66780]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The many activities which my Department supports have a fundamental impact on an individual's quality of life. Increasing access to the arts continues to be at the heart of our policy. Through the New Audiences Fund, more than 100 pilot schemes which increase access to a wide range of art forms have already benefited from over £3 million in additional project funding. Many arts events are now more affordable for those with modest or no income. Further grants from the New Audiences Fund, totalling over £1 million, will be announced later this month.

  QUEST
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure value for money and best practice in bodies sponsored by his Department. [66781]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I announced in December the establishment of the Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team (QUEST) to provide independent advice on the improvement of performance across all our sectors and to disseminate good practice. This will be in addition to the existing oversight of NDPBs exercised by my Department.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what areas of responsibility will be covered by QUEST. [66782]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  QUEST' s role will be to improve and sustain quality, standards and performance in all the fields for which my Department is responsible.

  Tourism Strategy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that each region of the UK benefits from the tourism industry. [66783]

  Janet Anderson
  The new strategy for tourism which we shall publish on 26 February 1999 will help create the right framework in which tourism can flourish. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have their own strategies, reflecting differing regional priorities.

  Within England, as I announced on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 352, following our Comprehensive Spending Review, there will be a transformed national tourism body and more resources will be used for support of tourism in the regions. The Regional Tourist Boards, working with their commercial members, local authorities and the Regional Development Agencies will together deliver the economic, environmental and social benefits well-managed and appropriately delivered tourism can bring to each region.

  Local Theatres
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to bring forward proposals to change the funding of local theatres through the Art Board. [66786]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government believe strongly in delegation. The new Arts Council which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed last year shares that view and has already proposed that a substantial element of the extra resources for the arts that the Government are providing should be delegated to the Regional Arts Boards. It will be for the Regional Arts Boards to take decisions on the funding for specific artforms or organisations within their regions, including theatre.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what role his Department will play in the development of the new Wembley stadium and related infrastructure. [66787]

  Mr. Banks
  I am keeping a very close eye on progress with the development of the new National Stadium, although my Department has no direct role in funding or constructing the stadium and relating infrastructure. The project is central to our plans to bring the major international sporting events to this country.

  Millennium Dome (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on plans for waste disposal at the dome. [66792]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has implemented a number of procedures for controlling waste during the construction phase of the dome. All contractors are required to specify waste management practices within their tender documentation, and implementation of these practices is assessed by weekly inspections and spot checks.

  During the year of the Millennium Experience, NMEC will adopt a waste management strategy based on the concepts of waste reduction, re-use, recycling and efficient removal from the site. NMEC is currently investigating supply strategies that will minimise the quantity of packaging coming onto the site, but will then provide facilities to allow separation of those major waste streams that are generated in order that they can be processed or recycled efficiently.

  The final details of the operational strategy will be defined with the assistance of site caterers who are likely to have the greatest impact on waste generation. However, where it is practical to do so, NMEC's catering strategy will encourage use of re-usable cutlery and crockery. Where this is not possible caterers will aim to use cutlery and crockery made from recycled or recyclable materials.

  Millennium Dome (Concessionary Fares)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the New Millennium Experience Company with a456
  view to developing special concessionary fares and entry/travel packages for families and frequent visitors to the dome. [66793]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company aims to ensure that as many people as possible can, if they wish, visit the dome at Greenwich. In developing the ticket pricing strategy the Company has been concerned to include attractive discounts for a number of groups. The Company has also been in discussion for a number of months with the travel trade and I am confident that these discussions will result in combined travel and dome admission packages from all parts of the UK.

  Millennium Dome (Expenditure)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about parliamentary accountability for expenditure on the Millennium Dome. [66795]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My noble Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is the sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) on behalf of the Government and is therefore accountable to Parliament for the Company's overall performance. I will be answering to this House on all matters relating to my noble Friend's responsibilities in respect of the NMEC.

  At official level, the arrangements for parliamentary accountability for expenditure on the dome mirror those which apply to all non-departmental public bodies. The Company's Chief Executive was appointed, by the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as Accounting Officer for the dome. She is therefore personally responsible to Parliament for use of the company's money.

  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is not of course, in receipt of Exchequer funds. It receives Lottery funding from the Millennium Commission. The Director of the Millennium Commission has formal Accounting Officer responsibility for the Commission's use of Lottery money. In addition, the DCMS Permanent Secretary, as Accounting Officer for the National Lottery Development Fund has responsibilities in respect of the overall use of Lottery funds.

  Landmark Millennium Projects
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the organisers of the 23 landmark millennium projects about sponsorship money. [66797]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission, which I chair, makes it a condition of grant to capital projects that at least 50 per cent. of the total project cost is raised through partnership funding, and this includes sponsorship in some cases. The Commission works closely with each project and is therefore involved in ongoing discussions about matched funding.

  Dance (Scotland)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held
  457
  with the Scottish Office on the funding of dance following the takeover of responsibility by the Scottish Parliament. [66773]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Support for the arts in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Football Task Force
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the football task force to publish its report on the commercial aspects of the game. [66785]

  Mr. Banks
  I have been told the report will be ready by the end of March 1999.

  Millennium Dome (Life-span)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the expected life of the millennium dome. [66791]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The structural steelwork of the dome has a life-span of at least 60 years; and the roofing material is expected to last at least 25 years before major maintenance is necessary.

  English National Stadium Development Company
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the English National Stadium Development Company; [67556]

  (2) if he will list the directors and trustees who sit on the English National Stadium Development Company Board; [67557]

  (3) if he will list the terms of reference and details of the funding of the English National Stadium Development Company. [67558]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The English National Stadium Development Company is the FA vehicle charged with creating a national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics, and required to meet the technical requirements for those sports under the Lottery Funding Agreement with the English Sports Council. The current estimate for the total cost of the project is £320m, of which £120m will be funded by the Lottery, the remainder by debt financing by the FA. Membership of the Development Company Board is as follows:

  Chairman:

  Ken Bates

  Members:

  Sir David Hill Wood

  David Richards

  David Sheepshanks

  Geoff Thompson

  Lord Harris

  Ernie Walker

  Sir Rodney Walker

  Ian Peacock

  Nicholas Coward

  Michael Cunnah

  Sponsorship Sports
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 350–51, how many times his expert group on tobacco sponsorship and alternative sponsorship has met; who its members are; how many times he expects it to meet in 1999; when he expects to receive its conclusions; and when he expects to report his response to its conclusions to the House. [R] [67138]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The group of experts met twice last year and members are now holding individual meetings with the seven sports which have sought our assistance to find alternative sponsors. To date these meetings have been very constructive. The meetings will be completed by the end of this month, after which the group will meet again to receive a report and to consider the nature and timing of help needed to replace existing contracts, many of which have several years to run. We will also consider the frequency of further meetings this year. I will keep the House advised of all significant developments.

  The terms of reference of the Task Force are:
  to assist sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to find replacement sponsors by:
  assessing the needs of each sport;
  offering advice on best practice in establishing commercial relationships with sponsors; and,
  assisting the sports in making links with potential new sponsors.

  Membership is:

  Tony Banks (Chairman)—Minister for Sport

  Gordon McCallum—Virgin Group

  Jon Smith—First Artist Corporation

  Maurice Lindsay—Central Council for Physical Recreation

  Mike Reynolds—Institute of Sports Sponsorship

  Derek Etherington—DCMS Sports Sponsorship Consultant

  New Opportunities Fund (ICT Training)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who prepared the specification of the skills training for the use by schools for information and communications technology funded by New Opportunities Fund moneys; and which bodies were consulted on the specification. [67390]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: A set of expected outcomes for the training have been developed that focus on the information and communication technology (ICT) knowledge, understanding and skills that teachers need to support their teaching. The outcomes are based on the new Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum, which was developed by the Teacher Training Agency. The outcomes also reflect national guidelines and in-service training in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The expected outcomes include an understanding of how to use ICT in teaching the whole class; planning, including the use of ICT for lesson preparation; and assessing pupils' work when ICT has been used.

  Arts Guide (Millennium Year)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department will ensure the
  459
  production of a guide on access for disabled people to arts, entertainment and leisure venues for the millennium year. [67139]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Increasing access to the arts is a key aim for my Department. Our commitment to access and equality of opportunity for disabled people is strong and my Department is keen to ensure that there is adequate information for disabled people on all the activities which we support and fund.

  There are already a number of useful guides for people with disabilities, some of which are published by Government Departments. The Department of Health has recently updated "A Practical Guide for Disabled People", which includes details of organisations which can offer advice on access to arts and leisure facilities, tourist accommodation and sports facilities. The Arts Council's publication "Arts and Disability" includes a chapter on access and details of useful contacts, including regional Access Committees, Trusts and voluntary organisations. Regional and voluntary organisations such as "Artsline" in London also offer invaluable advice.

  My Department will keep under review the availability of appropriate advice for disabled people in relation to our sectors, taking into account the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of our new policy initiatives.

  Chess
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding the Government gave to promoting and running chess for(a) young people and (b) adults in each of the last five years. [67058]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Since my Department took over responsibility for funding chess in 1996–97, the Government has invested £49,000 each year to help the British Chess Federation (BCF) promote the development of Chess. Expenditure by the BCF on junior chess and other initiatives, from the funding provided by my Department, is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Junior chess development

  14,542

  16,180

  13,870

  Other initiatives

  34,458

  32,820

  35,130

  An analysis for earlier years is not available. Whilst I am pleased that funding from my Department has been able to support initiatives specifically related to junior chess development, it has also been able to contribute to and benefit all age groups.

  Royal Society of Literature
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey on 11 January, concerning the Royal Society of Literature. [68311]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 264.

  English Sports Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to announce the appointment of a new chairman for the English Sports Council. [68115]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: We advertised for a new Chair for the English Sports Council last September. We received an excellent response, and have been carefully considering the candidates in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We will announce who is to be appointed as soon as we have finished the selection process.

  Tourism (Devon)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department will take to ensure that the tourist industry in Devon is supported by the RDA for the West Country. [68081]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: As our strategy for tourism will set out, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Regional Tourist Boards, local authorities and other tourism partners will together deliver the economic, environmental and social benefits that well-managed and appropriately developed tourism can bring to each region.

  Because of the significant economic importance of tourism there is representation of tourism specialists on the RDA boards, including that of the South West RDA.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with the British Olympic Committee about the UK Sports Institute. [68114]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport regularly has meetings with Craig Reedie, Chairman of the British Olympic Association, to discuss a wide range of issues including the UK Sports Institute.

  The BOA have a significant role to play in the development and success of the UK Sports Institute. Mr. Reedie is also deputy chairman of the UK Sports Council which is responsible for giving strategic direction to the UK Sports Institute. He is also a member of the newly formed UK Sports Institute Implementation Committee charged with the task of overseeing the development of the UK Sports Institute Headquarters.

  Staff of the BOA are closely involved with UK Sports Institute Development Groups, UK and Home County Sports Council staff, and Governing Bodies of sport, in developing the services that the UK Sports Institute will deliver to elite performers.

  Television Licences
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the cost of proposals to abolish the payment of television licence fees by old age pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [67928]
  461
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The estimated cost of providing free television licences for all pensioner only households would be £489 million a year. There are no plans at present for such a concession. The current review of the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 will include a consideration of the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available.

  Tourism (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase financing to the North West Tourist Board. [68471]

  Janet Anderson
  On 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 352, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the main decisions following the Departmental Spending Review. For tourism within England, these include a transformed national tourism body and more resources for the support of tourism in the regions.

  A team and advisory group have been set up to oversee implementation of these new arrangements. They are considering the remit and structure of the body, the funding mechanisms for tourism support and the implications for Regional Tourist Boards.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on the progress which has been made on reform of the House of Lords. [66798]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The publication of the Bill to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote and the Government's White Paper on longer-term reform has been widely welcomed.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the powers of local government to impose lower speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [66710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Local Highway Authorities already have the power to set speed limits of more than 30 mph within the national speed limit without the need to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. We shall be introducing legislation shortly aimed at allowing local highway authorities to introduce 20 mph speed limits without have to obtain consent. We will be issuing guidance to local highway authorities on the need for such limits to be combined with road engineering methods to ensure compliance.

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning inspectors were in post on 1 January(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [67881]
  462
  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of information on the numbers of planning Inspectors is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate. I have therefore asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Martin Brasher to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 29 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has passed your Question about the number of Planning Inspectors to the Planning Inspectorate for reply. I am responding in Chris Shepley's absence on official business.
  The attached table sets out the information you require. A further recruitment programme is nearly complete.

  Planning Inspectors—in post

  Date

  Full-time salaried Inspectors

  Part-time salaried Inspectors

  Fee-paid Inspectors

  1 January 1997

  217

  14

  201

  1 January 1998

  224

  12

  188

  1 January 1999

  209

  45

  135

  Canals
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken(a) to preserve canals and (b) to increase the use of canals for (i) leisure and (ii) commerce. [67916]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government value the social, economic and environmental benefits that inland waterways can bring and are keen to maximise the full potential of the canal network. We believe the waterways are a substantial asset and have an important role in a number of areas such as leisure and tourism, heritage, amenity, conservation, regeneration and transport.

  We have provided financial help to a range of canal restoration projects through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, Land Reclamation Programme grant and the Environmental Action Fund. Projects are also eligible for funding from the various Lottery distribution boards, from local authorities and from Europe. The Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council's report on their prioritisation of restoration projects will help to ensure that available funding is more effectively targeted.

  The Government-sponsored British Tourist Authority (BTA) is actively promoting the waterways of Britain and Ireland. The campaign, involving partnerships with the main waterway industry operators, local authorities and National Tourist Boards, is promoted through most of BTA' s overseas offices. BTA' s brochure 'Waterways Britain and Ireland' presents waterway travel as an alternative, sustainable way of touring the British Isles.

  The day-to-day management and operation of the inland waterway network rests with British Waterways, the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority and a range of other public and private bodies. The three main navigation authorities work closely with BTA, regional and national tourist boards and with the private sector to promote leisure and tourism opportunities on their respective waterways.
  463
  The Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, which represents around 30 authorities, is finalising a strategy for the inland navigations of the United Kingdom. This will include objectives for the navigation authorities to meet in relation to developing leisure, tourism and commercial opportunities on the waterways network.

  The Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council is undertaking a report to demonstrate ways in which the waterways in West Yorkshire can be developed for leisure, tourism and community use.

  The Government are keen to encourage the greater use of inland waterways for carrying freight where this is a practical and economic option. We currently give Freight Facilities Grant for inland waterways schemes where freight would otherwise have gone by road. The Department will be re-examining the rules of the scheme to try to encourage more applications for inland waterways.

  In addition, the Department is working to update planning guidance on transport which will encourage more freight to be carried by water. Local authorities in their development plans will be expected to consider opportunities for new developments which are served by waterways; and to give better protection to sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices, including water transport.

  We intend to publish in the next few months the Transport White Paper daughter document on inland waterways policy, the aim of which will be to raise the profile of the waterways and increase their potential.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the banning of the use of asbestos in the United Kingdom. [67986]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government are firmly committed to finding both a national and a Europe-wide solution to the problem of asbestos, which must be based on sound science. The European Commission's draft proposals for further restrictions on the marketing and use of white asbestos within the EU are likely to be voted on by Member States in March 1999. I expect to receive the Health and Safety Commission's recommendation on a British ban at around the same time, following its recent consultation exercise.

  Railtrack (Signal Wiring Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of checks carried out by Railtrack on signal wiring. [68057]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive have advised me that they are satisfied with Railtrack's strategies for achieving the safety of their signalling systems, including the management of any problems.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the allocation of investment by Railtrack in signal wiring for the next three years; what action the Railway Inspectorate 464
  is taking to ascertain the safety of the existing system; and what actions have been undertaken to replace faulty signal wiring this year. [68054]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is Railtrack's responsibility to ensure the safety of its railway infrastructure and to allocate the resources needed to achieve this. Railtrack's investment plans, including forecast expenditure on signalling, are set out in its Network Management Statement (NMS) which was published last Spring. The new NMS is to be published in March.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have advised me that they are satisfied with Railtrack's strategies for achieving the safety of their signalling systems, including the management of any problems.

  In the light of recent allegations, the Railway Inspectorate has asked Railtrack for an update of its programme for dealing with a specific wiring degradation problem. Railtrack has already assured HSE that the special arrangements in force at relevant locations are adequate to ensure safety and will not prevent the completion of other work necessary for safe operation. HSE intends to inspect sample locations of its choosing to provide independent, external verification that appropriate systems and working methods remain in place to control risks.

  The replacement of signal wiring is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Railway Incident, Bow Junction
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call for a report from the Railway Inspectorate on the recent incident at Bow Junction. [68056]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A serious incident occurred at Bow Junction in East London on 8 October 1994 and was mentioned in paragraph 233 of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways' Annual Report on Railway Safety for 1994–96. The cause of a failure of the signalling system was a series of failures in the design, commissioning and testing of intermediate stages of signalling works because of poor communications and lack of project management staff. The project was restarted only after all management and safety procedures had been examined, critically reviewed and rewritten or strengthened as necessary. In February/March 1995, HSE's Railway Inspectorate carried out a thorough audit of these new procedures. The audit team of four, led by a Principal Railway Inspector and including inspectors with railway signalling background, communicated their findings to Railtrack on 1 March 1995. The project has been continually monitored until its substantial completion last year.

  Greater London Authority Headquarters
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he received recommending that the final shortlist for consideration as the new headquarters for the Greater London authority should contain three proposals. [67948]
  465
  Mr. Raynsford
  Of the seven sites considered in detail, two schemes, London Bridge City and Victoria House, stood out. It would not have been right to have put other developers to the trouble and expense of working up their proposals when they had no chance of succeeding.

  M6 (Staffordshire)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Regional Planning Group on alternatives to M6 widening to relieve traffic congestion in Staffordshire. [68322]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety on 10 December 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 110, as well as announcing the Programme of Trunk Road Starts in the West Midlands, took the opportunity to announce the start of the consultation with Regional Planning bodies on the programme of studies to address the most urgent problems on the Trunk Road network not addressed by schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvements.

  The West Midlands to North West Conurbation Study is scheduled to begin in the Summer of 1999. Consultation with the Regional Planning Conference will take place during the preparation of the consultants brief and at regular time throughout the life of the study.

  As part of this multi-modal study, the consultants will be asked to indicate a comprehensive range of strategies that could be used to tackle the traffic problems of the area, including the possibility of modal shift especially for freight. All infrastructure improvements that are identified as a preferred option, whether road or other modes, will be assessed against the New Approach to Appraisal.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce changes to the Packaging Waste Regulations. [68247]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on Thursday 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 335–37.

  Social Services (SSAs)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) by social services authority and (b) in total (i) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99, (ii) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000, (iii) the difference between (i) and (ii), (iv) the difference expressed as a percentage, (v) the special transitional grant for 1998–99, (vi) the difference between standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000 and the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99 combined totalled with special transitional grant for 1998–99 and (vii) the difference in (vi) expressed as a percentage. [68367]

  Ms Armstrong
  The figures requested have been placed, in the form requested, in the Library of the House.
  466
  The comparison which they provide is, however, misleading. This is because they do not reflect the Comprehensive Spending Review's full provision for personal social services, which started from a zero base, looking at expenditure needs afresh. The only fair comparison is to look at total resources provided for social services which, in aggregate, show a 6.1 per cent. cash increase or a 3.5 per cent. real terms increase between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The increased resources we are making available will meet the costs of looking after existing and new community care clients, and enable local authorities to deliver real improvements in services.

  Employees at Risk
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the opportunities available under current legislation to take steps to reduce the risk of violence to employees whose job brings them into face to face contact with the public. [68372]

  Mr. Meale
  I have looked carefully at this issue. There has been a lot of good work done by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. However, I want to examine what other measures are available. I have therefore written to the Health and Safety Commission to ask for advice on options for further action that will have a positive impact on preventing work-related violence.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require the Health and Safety Executive to advise employers about measures that can be taken to reduce the risk to employees of violence at work. [68373]

  Mr. Meale
  None at present. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has already issued general guidance and sector specific guidance for the retail and finance sectors. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has also issued sector specific guidance for the health care and education sectors. Health and Safety Inspectors also offer advice in the course of their normal contact with employers and employees.

  Once I have received advice from the HSC, I will be able to consider what further action is necessary.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) trade unions and (b) employers about violence at work; and if he will make a statement. [68374]

  Mr. Meale
  When I replied to a Private Member's Debate on health and safety proposed by my hon. Friend on 4 November 1998,Official Report, columns 804–06, I stressed that this Government would not tolerate violence and aggression towards working people. I have continued to promote that message whenever I can, especially during the meetings I have with trade unions and employers. I also continue to draw attention to the issue in the many speeches I make about health and safety. Recent occasions when I have done so were speeches I made at the National Health and Safety Groups Council on 28 January and the AEEU National Academy of Safety and Health on 14 September 1998.
  467
  In addition, both trade unions and employers participate in the Interdepartmental Committee on Violence to Staff (ICVS) which is chaired by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Road Closures
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available were the(a) A62, (b) M62, (c) A66 and (d) A69 closed due to inclement weather. [68168]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  From the records that are available, the numbers of closures are as follows:

  A62
  The A62 is a local road except for a short length linking with junction 27 of the M62. The highway authorities for the high level sections of the road are Kirklees Metropolitan District Council and Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.
  The reports that we have obtained are from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and cover the last three years only. During that time in the year April to April 1996–97, the road was closed for a total of four days and in 1997–98 for a total of half a day.

  M62
  The motorway was closed overnight between junctions 21 and 22 on 25 January 1995. This was necessary when a lorry jack-knifed in heavy early evening snow, blocking the carriageway and preventing further gritting.
  The motorway was also closed between junctions 20 and 22 on 12 and 13 January 1993 when lighting columns become unstable in high winds.

  A66
  Records are available for the last 6 years only:

  Full closure

  Partial closure (HGVs and caravans)

  Year

  Number of times

  Reason

  Number of times

  Reason

  1999 (to date)

  —

  —

  3

  High wind

  1998

  3

  Snow/ice

  19

  High wind

  1997

  1

  Snow/ice

  16

  High wind

  1996

  13

  Snow/ice

  26

  High wind

  1995

  6

  Snow/ice

  18

  High wind

  1994

  4

  Snow/ice

  No records available

  1993

  4

  Snow/ice

  No records available

  A69
  Records are available for the last six years only:
  The road has not been closed due to inclement weather.

  N-Viro
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the N-Viro product from Great Stambridge is subject to the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 and the 1996 Code of Practice for agricultural use of sewage sludge. [68370]

  Mr. Meale
  All sewage sludge used on agricultural land, including that treated by the N-Viro process is subject to the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 and the associated Code of Practice. The regulations are enforced in England and Wales by the Environment Agency.
  468
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the appraisal by the Environment Agency into the Waste Management Licence application by Anglian Water for the N-Viro process at Great Stambridge will be completed and issued. [68371]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency expects to complete the appraisal of the application by Anglian Water for a Waste Management Licence for the N-Viro process at Great Stambridge by early summer. An interim report will be produced by the Environment Agency in February and processing of sludge from Southend will not begin until the Waste Management Licence has been granted.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Railway
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken by his Department to promote improved services on the Barking to Gospel Oak railway line. [68342]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Silverlink operate this line under a franchise agreement with the Franchising Director. This includes a contractual obligation to replace the existing slam door rolling stock with sliding door rolling stock by May 1999. It also includes contractual commitments to upgrade the passenger information systems at stations along the route. Railtrack have reinstated a signal between two of the stations on the line: this has increased the capacity of the track and should reduce delays caused by conflicts with other operators using the line.

  Leisure Complex (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the PFI bid submitted by Sefton Metropolitan Authority to build a new swimming and leisure complex in Crosby. [66765]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Metropolitan Borough of Sefton was told on 27 August 1998 of the inter-departmental Project Review Group's decision to agree to my Department's recommendation that their project be included in the updated list of local authority PFI projects the Government intend to support. That list was the subject of a press release the same day. It is now for the local authority to bring the project to contract signature.

  Taxi Accessibility
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to produce further proposals for taxi accessibility; what discussions he has held with(a) vehicle manufacturers and (b) suppliers to ensure the availability of vehicles which conform with taxi accessibility regulations; and if he will make a statement. [68641]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have held extensive consultation on our proposals for taxi accessibility under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with manufacturers, operators, local authorities and with organisations representing disabled people.
  469
  We are reviewing our proposals in the light of this consultation and we will be publishing a further round of consultation, including draft regulations and a regulatory impact assessment, later this year.

  My Department is also in close and regular touch with vehicle manufacturers and converters and we believe that a range of vehicles which meet the regulations will become available to address the new market which will be created.

  Signal Equipment Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety of signal equipment owned by Railtrack. [68466]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proper design, installation and maintenance of the signalling system is paramount to railway safety. The responsibility for the railway infrastructure lies with Railtrack. The Health and Safety Executive have advised me that they are satisfied with Railtrack's strategies for achieving the safety of their signalling systems including the management of any problems.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety guidelines his Department issues in relation to the maintenance and renewal of signal equipment on railway lines. [68467]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The responsibility for the safe maintenance and renewal of signalling equipment lies with Railtrack, who issue safety guidelines in these matters. The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate undertakes routine monitoring of the way Railtrack discharges its responsibilities for the safe operation of the railway network and would take appropriate enforcement action if necessary.

  West Coast Line
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Rail Regulator concerning the cleanliness of trains on the West Coast Line; and if he will make a statement. [68001]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The cleanliness of trains if a matter for the Franchising Director rather than the Rail Regulator. Virgin is required under its franchise agreement to carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys. These measure satisfaction with, among other things, cleanliness of the trains. The latest available published figures (for the period to July 1998) show that the cleanliness level on Virgin Trains was at or above the agreed benchmarks.

  Virgin Trains
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Virgin Trains on the discounting of void days from punctuality and reliability tables; and if he will make a statement. [68000]
  470
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Train operators are entitled to declare days void where they have been unable to run an effective service for the day. For every void day, the operator has to offer one day extension or refund on season tickets. The number of days voided by each train operator will be included in the Franchising Director's next and future quarterly Performance Bulletins. OPRAF are considering how the statistics in the Bulletin can be made to reflect more accurately the experience of passengers.

  Concessionary Bus Fare Schemes
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authority areas in which no concessionary bus fare scheme for pensioners is in operation. [68590]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My information is that there are 10 local authorities that have no concessionary fare scheme for their resident pensioners. These are the District Councils for Caradon, Eden, Hambleton, Kennet, Kerrier, Malvern Hills, North Cornwall, Penwith, Scarborough and South Holland.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incinerators used for disposing of public waste materials in the UK(a) are currently operational and (b) were operational five years ago. [68133]

  Mr. Meale
  In England and Wales, ten municipal waste incinerators are currently operational. Twenty three such incinerators were operational in 1994.

  Gas Vehicle Manufacturers (Tax Incentives)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tax incentives are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles powered by road fuel gases. [68163]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no specific tax incentives available for manufacturers of motor vehicles powered by road fuel gases. Government action to support the wider uptake of these fuels focuses principally on assisting with the purchase and operation of gas powered vehicles. Duty on road fuel gases has been frozen for the last two Budgets, and the Government are committed to at least maintaining the 1997 duty differential between road fuel gases and ordinary diesel. My Department is also funding the Powershift programme which provides grants to help cover the additional cost of purchasing gas powered vehicles. These measures should provide some certainty to the road fuel gas market, and help to encourage manufacturers to invest in the production in gas powered vehicles.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list(a) the recycling targets and (b) the level of achievement of these targets currently being achieved by the Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority, for (i) glass (clear and green), (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans, (iv) steel cans and (v) paper and cardboard; [68138]
  471
  (2) if he will list (a) the recycling targets for domestic and commercial waste and (b) the level of achievement of these targets by each of the unitary authorities in England (i) currently and (ii) five years ago; [68137]

  (3) if he will list the recycling targets for (i) domestic and (ii) commercial waste achieved by (a) each of the district and borough council authorities in East and West Sussex and (b) the Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority; and if he will list the comparable figures for 1994. [68165]

  Mr. Meale
  When the previous Government published their White Paper "Making Waste Work" in 1995, they set a number of indicative targets for waste. One of the primary targets was to increase recycling and recovery so that they dealt with 40 per cent. of municipal waste by 2005. There was also a subsidiary target to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. These indicative targets were set for the whole of England and Wales and it is up to each individual local authority to determine their own priorities in the light of these targets.

  The latest figures for municipal waste relate to 1996–97—the first year after publication of "Making Waste Work". Recycling and energy recovery of municipal waste stood at around 13 per cent., with recycling running at around 7 per cent. of household waste. No comparable figures are available for five years ago.

  The Department is not able to release details of the recycling rate of an individual authority, or for individual materials within this rate, because the figures that are supplied to it for the Department's Municipal Waste Survey are done so on a confidential basis.

  The Government are currently preparing a new waste strategy. The consultation paper "Less Waste: More Value" confirmed their support for the targets in "Making Waste Work", but considers that there is a need for a substantial increase in recycling and recovery, going beyond the targets set by the previous Government.

  We believe that, for targets to be effective in changing behaviour towards a desired end, they have to be challenging but achievable, underpinned by a clear course of action, and capable of proper measurement and public explanation. Targets also need to be justified against the principles of good regulation: accountability, transparency, targeting, consistency, and proportionality.

  Public Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the current official guidelines on the building of public waste incinerators near densely populated areas. [68136]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The building of public waste incinerators will normally require the grant of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an authorisation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Government guidance on the location of incinerators is included in Planning Policy Guidance note 23 "Planning and Pollution Control". This will be updated soon when Planning Policy Guidance note 10 "Planning and Waste Management" is published. The Department also issued a guidance note to local authorities in August 1997, on the provision of incinerators in connection with the slaughter of cattle under the "Over Thirty Months Scheme".
  472
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public waste incinerators have been constructed in the UK in each of the last five years. [68134]

  Mr. Meale
  Within England and Wales, one municipal waste incinerator was constructed in 1997. All other plants currently operating in England and Wales were significantly upgraded during the period in question, but no other plants were newly constructed during this period.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of public waste is currently processed through(a) recycling, (b) landfill and (c) incineration. [68135]

  Mr. Meale
  The table gives the percentage of municipal waste, collected by local authorities in England and Wales in 1996–97, which was treated or disposed of by different methods.

  Treatment and disposal of municipal waste, England and Wales, 1996–97

  Percentage

  Recycling

  7

  Landfill

  84

  Incineration without energy recovery

  3

  Incineration with energy recovery

  6

  Source:

  DETR/WO Municipal Waste Survey, 1996–97

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many HGVs have converted to road fuel gases since May 1997. [68164]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of HGVs able to run on road fuel gases increased from 41 vehicles in the first quarter of 1997 to 96 vehicles in the third quarter of 1998, according to the latest statistics from the DVLA vehicle register. While this increase is small, the Government expect that there will be strong growth in the number of HGVs converting to road fuel gases, particularly for those vehicles predominantly operating in urban areas.

  Buses (Road Fuel Gases)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public transport buses have converted to road fuel gases since May 1997. [68162]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of public service buses able to run on road fuel gases increased from 20 vehicles in the first quarter of 1997 to 53 vehicles in the third quarter of 1998, according to the latest statistics from the DVLA vehicle register. While this increase is small, the Government expect that there will be strong growth in the number of buses converting to road fuel gases, particularly for those vehicles predominantly operating in urban areas.

  Local Authorities (Status Criteria)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the criteria which apply to(a) districts seeking to attain borough status and (b) boroughs seeking to attain city status; and if he will make a statement. [66804]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A district council may petition Her Majesty The Queen for the grant of a charter conferring upon the district the status of borough. The resolution authorising the petition requires a two-thirds majority of the members at a meeting specially convened for that purpose. The title of city is an honour conferred by Her Majesty The Queen, by Letters Patent; it is not a right which can be claimed by the fulfilment of specific conditions.

  Merchant Vessels
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many merchant vessels are registered under a British flag; and how many were so registered in May 1997. [68613]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of trading vessels registered at the end of the quarters nearest to May 1997 and at 30 September 1998, the latest available, are:

  Register

  31 March 1997

  30 June 1997

  30 September 1998

  United Kingdom

  377

  380

  375

  Isle of Man

  130

  139

  158

  Channel Islands

  3

  3

  3

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the contingency plans in the event of the Jubilee Line extension not being completed in time for the Millennium Exhibition. [66796]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have welcomed London Transport's phased opening strategy of the Jubilee Line Extension project and their confirmation that it will open in good time for the Millennium Experience. It would, however, be irresponsible not to have in place contingency arrangements to manage problems on any of the main transport links to the Millennium site over the Millennium Year, including any failure of the Jubilee Line. I therefore asked London Underground Ltd., through my Millennium Access Co-ordination Group, to lead the production of contingency plans for this and other eventualities.

  London Underground have, in association with London's other transport operators, developed plans to cover a wide-range of possible scenarios and identified an underlying command and control strategy to direct the plans should they need to be invoked. An overview of the plans has recently been presented to my group, and we will be examining the detailed proposals shortly.
  474
  The next phase will be to test and validate the plans, and to implement the control measures so that they are in a
  'state of readiness for implementation'

  by the Autumn.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [68858]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 and the Special Grant Report (No. 37). These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 1999–2000, and the basis of their distribution; and provide for Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant to be paid to certain authorities for 1999–2000. Drafts of these reports were issued for consultation on 2 December 1998. The Department received written representations from the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, as well as from 215 individual local authorities and six local authority groups. My Ministerial colleagues at DETR also met the Associations, 72 delegations from local councils and four from local authority groups.

  My proposals included changes to grant distribution to give a fairer system. Having considered the views of the local authority associations and others who have commented on my initial proposals, I have decided to make only the changes in the SSA methodology which formed the basis of consultation, and no others. The SSAs for individual authorities may be slightly different from those at consultation, generally reflecting more accurate data that have become available since then.

  However, changes in the method of distribution mean that some authorities do much less well than others. The change to the formula for children's social services, in particular, has had a serious impact on some authorities. Following representations, I have concluded that I should make some changes to my proposals for a Central Support Protection Grant. This will ensure that authorities with education responsibilities can continue to provide services while they adjust their spending plans. I shall therefore provide an extra £30 million in Central Support Protection Grant to ensure that all authorities with education and social services responsibilities receive at least 1.5 per cent. more grant in 1999–2000 than they did in 1998–99. I can also confirm that no local authority will receive less grant in 1999–2000 than they did in 1998–99.

  I also received representations from local government on council tax benefit subsidy limitation. I have considered these carefully but decided to make no change to the scheme I proposed on 2 December.

  This year's local government finance settlement is the most generous since the introduction of the council tax. We have made grant distribution fairer. No authority will lose grant next year. Many will benefit from substantially increased resources, reflecting a 5.5 per cent. overall increase in funding.
  475
  For the longer term, we have published SSA totals for the next three years, and do not expect to make further changes in the method of distribution. Authorities therefore have a firm basis for planning long term, sustained service improvements.

  There is no excuse on the basis of this settlement for councils to inflict steep council tax rises on their local communities. Our increased funding for local government is generous, but affordable. We look to councils to strike the same balance.

  Last year we produced, for the first time, a Plain English guide to local government finance. This was widely welcomed, and I have arranged for an updated edition to be produced.

  I shall be sending copies of these reports and the Plain English guide to all authorities, together with tables showing each authority's Standard Spending Assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant. Copies of the reports, tables, and the guide are available in the Vote Office and the Library.

  Aer Lingus Crash
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) summaries and (b) microfiche records of the report of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch into the Aer Lingus Viscount crash of 24 March 1968 have been retained. [68834]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The investigation into the accident that occurred to the Aer Lingus Viscount aircraft on 24 March 1968 was conducted by Air Accident Investigation officials of the Irish Department of Transport and Power. The AAIB participated in the investigation. The Irish report was published in September 1970.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Calendar
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to introduce reform to the parliamentary year. [66807]

  Mr. Tipping
  I would like to see how the experiment on Thursday sittings agreed by the House on 16 December works before making further proposals.

  Standing Committee on Regional Affairs
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her proposals for the reactivation of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. [66808]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I announced on 14 January 1999,Official Report, columns 446–47, that a proposal would be put to the Modernisation Committee to revive and adapt the standing committee on regional affairs. A memorandum setting out the proposal will shortly be sent to the Committee and I hope they will report on it in the near future.

  European Political Institutions (Travel and Communications)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the President of the Council when she plans to announce amended arrangements for travel to, and communications with, European political institutions. [66809]

  Mr. Tipping
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council has said before that the scheme to allow Members to visit EU institutions would be extended. I can announce today that, from the next financial year, Members will be able to claim re-imbursement of travel and subsistence expenses for one visit either to the main EU institutions or to the national Parliament of any EU Member state. The Scheme will be reviewed after a year to see if it is possible to allow two visits in the second year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to introduce a question period for questions without notice. [66811]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I take questions without notice every Thursday after announcing the business. The Prime Minister also takes questions without notice every Wednesday. I have no plans to extend this procedure.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will establish an ad hoc Select Committee on military action against Iraq. [66810]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to do so.

  Parliamentary Procedures Reform
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received concerning the procedure for putting non-contentious, technical law reform Bills recommended by the Law Commission before Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [67302]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have recently met the Chairman of the Law Commission to discuss this matter. There already exists an expedited procedure for Law Commission bills. This issue may also be considered by the Modernisation Committee in the course of its current inquiry into a second forum or main committee.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to propose reforms of parliamentary procedure in respect of uncontroversial Bills implementing Law Commission recommendations. [67301]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Standing Order No. 59 already provides for the second reading of Law Commission bills to be taken in second reading committee rather than on the floor of the House. I have no immediate plans to propose other reforms of this procedure, but it may be relevant to the Modernisation Committee's current inquiry into the possibility of establishing a second forum or main committee.

  Law Commission Recommendations (Bills)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council how many Bills based on Law Commission recommendations have been enacted in each of the last five years. [67304]
  477
  Mrs. Beckett
  The figures are set out in the table. The total of 20 includes two Statute Law Revision Acts and two Consolidation Acts with amendments giving effect to Law Commission recommendations.

  Year

  Number

  1994

  3

  1995

  7

  1996

  8

  1997

  1

  1998

  2

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what was the length of time of the debates which took place at each parliamentary stage of each of the Bills introduced to implement Law Commission recommendations in each of the last five years. [67303]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The figures in the table relate to the total amount of debating time on the floor of the House of Commons and do not include any committee proceedings. Law Commission proposals formed only part of some of the bills. Bills taken through all their stages without debate are recorded as having taken less than one minute.

  Debating time

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  54 hours 54 minutes

  Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994

  1 hour 44 minutes

  Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994

  2 minutes

  Finance Act 1995

  36 hours 46 minutes

  Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995

  Less than 1 minute

  Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

  33 minutes

  Civil Evidence Act 1995

  3 minutes

  Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995

  1 minute

  Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995

  1 minute

  Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1995

  1 hour 12 minutes

  Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996

  Less than 1 minute

  Family Law Act 1996

  19 hours 8 minutes

  Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

  Less than 1 minute

  Damages Act 1996

  3 minutes

  Housing Act 1996

  25 hours 24 minutes

  Education Act 1996 (consolidation Act)

  Less than 1 minute

  Schools Inspection Act 1996 (consolidation Act)

  Less than 1 minute

  Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

  Less than 1 minute

  land Registration Act 1997

  Less than 1 minute

  Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998

  4 hours 8 minutes

  Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998

  Less than 1 minute

  Salary Payments (Euros)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to meet requests from right hon. and hon. Members for the payment of their salaries in euros. [67273]

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members to have the option of receiving their salaries in euros. [66509]
  478
  Mrs. Beckett
  There are no plans to offer right hon. and hon. Members the option of receiving their salaries in euros while the United Kingdom is outside the single currency zone.

  Lords Amendments
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council how many amendments to legislation made in the House of Lords were(a) approved and (b) rejected by this House in the 1997–98 session; and how many of each were Government amendments. [67607]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the 1997–98 session, the House of Commons considered 1,685 amendments made by the House of Lords to bills originating in this House. This House agreed to 1,615 of these amendments (four with amendments of its own) and disagreed to 70. To give precise statistics as to how many of each were Government amendments would incur a disproportionate cost. However, the House of Lords Public Bill Sessional Statistics for Session 1997–98 is a document which is in the public domain. This contains information concerning Government defeats in the House of Lords, stating in each case whether these were subsequently reversed by the House of Commons.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons appointed to chair immigration appeal tribunals have left office before the end of their respective terms during the period of office of the present president of the immigration appeal tribunal; and how many of them are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities. [68482]

  Mr. Hoon
  No person appointed to chair Immigration Appeal Tribunals has left office before the end of their appointment during the period of the present President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, His Honour Judge David Pearl.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the duties of the Vice-President of Administration of the Immigration Appeals Authority; when the present appointment was made and at what salary; how many(a) informal and (b) formal complaints about the vice-president have been made since his appointment; and what was the outcome of the complaints. [68487]

  Mr. Hoon
  The post of Vice President of Administration of the Immigration Appellate Authority does not exist. The Immigration Appellate Authority consists of Immigration Adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Compliment of the Adjudicators consists of; one Chief Adjudicator; one Deputy Chief Adjudicator; 4 Regional Adjudicators; 29 full-time Adjudicators; and 213 part-time Adjudicators. The compliment of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal consists of one President; 4 Vice Presidents; 25 part-time legal members; and 26 part-time lay members. On the matter of complaints I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 1 February 1999.
  479
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) informal and (b) formal complaints have been made to his Department about the activities and attitudes of immigration appeal adjudicators by other adjudicators in each of the last five years; how many were from (a) women and (b) people from ethnic minorities; and what was the outcome of each complaint. [68486]

  Mr. Hoon
  No such complaints are recorded as having been made to the Lord Chancellor's Department between 1994 and 1996.

  In 1997 there were three informal complaints. Two of them were from a female member of a minority ethnic community. One of these complaints was resolved by agreement between the parties and the other was superseded by further discussions and correspondence. The third complaint was discussed with the individual concerned and no further action taken.

  In 1998 there were four informal and two formal complaints, all from a female member of a minority ethnic community. The complainant requested that the matters of substance raised in the informal and one of the formal complaints should be recorded but did not seek further action. The Lord Chancellor determined in relation to the other formal complaint that the adjudicator concerned should have made more careful enquiries in handling of complaint from solicitors and not have referred to the "promulgation" of a determination.

  The Lord Chancellor is considering one informal complaint made this year by a female member of a minority ethnic community.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the post of research and policy adjudicator at the Immigration Appeals Authority was created; how the person chosen was selected and by whom; and what steps were taken to ensure that the method of appointment was free from race and gender prejudice. [68485]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following an announcement in Parliament on 18 December 1996,Official Report, column 752, that the then Government intended to review Asylum and Immigration Appeals, the Regional Immigration Adjudicators asked one of their number, Dr. H. H. Storey, to prepare a paper which could be submitted to the Lord Chancellor's Department, setting out the Authority's response to that Review. Dr. Storey prepared the paper and it was submitted to the Lord Chancellor's Department in May 1997. From that date Dr. Storey has, with the endorsement of the present and previous Chief Adjudicator, continued to work on research projects for the Authority, in addition to his normal duties. Dr. Storey was originally chosen because the Regional Adjudicators considered him to be the person best qualified for the position. He is a former University Lecturer and an expert on European and Human Rights law.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when the European panel of the Immigration Appeals Authority was established; for what purpose and by whom; how and by whom its membership was recommended and appointed; and what steps were taken to ensure that the method of appointment was free of race and gender prejudice. [68484]
  480
  Mr. Hoon
  A European Panel was established in 1997 by the Chief Immigration Adjudicator as a result of specific concerns expressed by practitioners that it occasionally happened that cases with complex European issues were listed before relatively inexperienced Adjudicators. The intention was to create a core of Adjudicators who could be trained in European law, and that this core be widened as quickly as possible. The first group of Adjudicators were nominated by Regional Adjudicators. All full-time Adjudicators in post as at November 1998 have now been trained and are on the Panel.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is mandatory for the Chief Adjudicator of the Immigration Appeal Authority to report the nature and number of complaints of race or gender prejudice or discrimination by members of the authority about other members to his Department. [68483]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Chief Immigration Adjudicator is responsible, in liaison with the Lord Chancellor, his officials and the Court Service, for the efficient operation of the Adjudicators' system. The Lord Chancellor would expect the Chief Immigration Adjudicator, and all other Tribunal Presidents or Tribunal Heads, to inform him of any complaint against a member of the judiciary, whether it is from a member of the public or a fellow member of the judiciary.

  Judiciary (Race and Gender Discrimination)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the standard of proof used to determine complaints of race or gender discrimination or prejudice against members of the judiciary by other members of the judiciary who are women or from a minority ethnic background. [68488]

  Mr. Hoon
  Having regard to the gravity of the allegation the Lord Chancellor requires clear and convincing proof before he would be satisfied that the complaint was made out.

  Barristers' Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the sets of barristers' chambers in London who have rendered services for his Department since 1 May 1997 and the remuneration made in respect of such services in each case. [68623]

  Mr. Hoon
  The remuneration received by sets of barristers' chambers in London which have rendered services to the Lord Chancellor's Department over this period is set out in the table. This includes work done for the Court Service Agency and work by the Treasury Junior.

  London Chambers

  Total paid (£)

  Blackstone Chambers, Blackstone House, (formerly 2 Hare Court)

  13,491

  4 Breams Buildings

  6,373

  1 Brick Court

  3,995

  1 Crown Office Row, Ground Floor

  5,551

  Devereux Chambers, Devereux Court

  1,486

  5 Essex Court

  164

  39 Essex Street

  20,180

  481

  London Chambers

  Total paid (£)

  Falcon Chambers

  2,361

  4–5 Gray's Inn Square

  3,624

  1 Hare Court

  3,348

  Keating Chambers, 10 Essex Street

  1,586

  1 King's Bench Walk

  3,965

  6 King's Bench Walk

  7,832

  11 King's Bench Walk, Ground Floor

  36,687

  11 King's Bench Walk, 1st Floor

  1,645

  Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond Buildings

  1,879

  13 Old Square, 1st Floor

  2,393

  3 Pump Court, Upper Ground Floor

  2,173

  6 Pump Court, Ground and Lower Ground Floor

  2,350

  Queen Elizabeth Building

  23,735

  3 Raymond Buildings

  1,092

  3 Serjeants' Inn

  840

  7 Stone Buildings, Ground Floor

  1,175

  1 Temple Gardens

  31,531

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Carers (Further and Higher Education)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies the Government are implementing to encourage carers to enter further and higher education. [67971]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are committed to widening participation in both further and higher education and our plans will enable many people, including carers, to pursue their studies. We are promoting flexible learning opportunities through our new initiatives such as the University for Industry and other possibilities for distance learning. Our enhanced student support arrangements for FE and HE will also promote access to learning; and the introduction of Individual Learning Accounts will give people the flexibility to decide what, how and when to learn, and empower them to take greater control of their own career and personal development needs.

  Education (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the increase in standard spending assessment for education for Portsmouth Education Authority for 1999–2000. [67241]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The provisional education SSA for Portsmouth in 1999–2000 represents an underlying increase of £4.1 million or 6 per cent. These figures illustrate the effect of allowing for local authority changes of function and taking account of new arrangements for funding music and student support.

  Teachers (PE)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students enrolled for PE teacher training (secondary) in each year since 1980. [67740]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the number of new entrants to physical education (PE) initial teacher training for the years 1982–83 to 1998–99. Information for 1980–81 and 1981–82 is not available.
  482

  Recruitment to physical education initial training courses1, England, 1982–83 to 1998–99

  Year

  Intake

  1982–832

  866

  1983–842

  745

  1984–852

  711

  1985–862

  700

  1986–872

  738

  1987–882

  848

  1988–892

  863

  1989–902

  964

  1990–912

  898

  1991–922

  1,078

  1992–933

  1,153

  1993–943

  1,084

  1994–953

  1,309

  1995–963

  1,311

  1996–973

  1,384

  1997–983

  1,644

  1998–993,4

  1,491

  1 Includes School Centred ITT and Open University

  2 Between 1982–83 and 1991–92 all figures represent full-time equivalents

  3 From 1992–93 to 1998–99 figures represent head-counts; that is the total of full-time and part-time recruitment

  4 Provisional

  Sources:

  1982–83 to 1993–94: DFE Annual Recruitment Survey

  1994–95: Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Early Statistics Survey

  1995–96 to 1998–99: TTA Survey of ITT Providers

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding there is for in-service education for physical education. [67739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected or held centrally.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 482, how many hours of training are given to primary teachers to deliver the whole physical education curriculum. [67858]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not specify the amount of training to be given for any subject. It is for individual providers of primary initial teacher training to ensure that their courses enable trainees to meet the standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status.

  Early Education (3-year-olds)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 261, what is the participation rate of 3-year-olds in early education in England. [67853]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. There were 222,000 or 35 per cent. of three-year-olds maintained nursery and primary schools in England in January 1998; this figure rises to 251,000 or 40 per cent. of three-year-olds if special and independent schools are included. In addition, the Government have set a target to double the national participation rate of three-year-olds in free early education places to 66 per cent. by 2002, using the maintained, voluntary and private sectors.
  483
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 261, what is the participation rate of 3-year-olds in early education in Southampton. [67857]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. There were 406 3-year-olds in maintained nursery and primary schools in the Southampton Local Education Authority in January 1998. In addition, the Government have set a target to double the national participation rate of 3-year-olds in free early education places to 66 per cent. by 2002, using the maintained, voluntary and private sectors.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the additional factors relating to young children used by his Department in determining the 50 local education authority areas which have been given preference in distributing funding for early education places for 3-year-olds. [68524]

  Ms Hodge
  The 50 Local Education Authorities which will receive Funding in 1999–2000 for early education places for 3-year-olds are those with the highest levels of social need measured by the Government' s Index of Local Deprivation (ILD) augmented by two factors: low birth weight and the proportion of births to teenage mothers.

  The indicators that were used to draw up the ILD are:

  housing lacking amenities;

  over-crowded housing;

  17-year-olds no longer in full-time education;

  derelict land;

  income support;

  dependent children of income support recipients;

  low educational attainment (percentage of children gaining GCSE passes at grades D-G only plus those not gaining any GCSE passes);

  long term unemployment;

  unemployment;

  insurance premiums;

  non income support recipients in receipt of council tax benefit;

  standard mortality ratios.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much weighting is given to pupil numbers in calculating the education SSA. [67653]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Some 81 per cent. of the education SSA related to schools is allocated on the basis of pupil numbers.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the possibility of the local authority funding regulations enabling a local education authority to receive funding based on the SSA for education where there are no maintained schools. [67655]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: The Government have no plans to change the current education SSA system under which most of the national total is allocated on the basis of the number of registered pupils educated at maintained schools.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that current school-aged children with autism have suitable provision made for them; and if he will make a statement; [68201]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority will make available for each registered pupil with special educational needs, with particular reference to autistic spectrum disorder, the special educational provision which that learning difficulty calls for; and if he will make a statement; [68202]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority places the most important component of an autistic child's education on the statement of special educational needs of each child it has identified as having autism; and if he will make a statement; [68203]

  (4) what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority has a range of provision for children with autism that includes specialist provision; and if he will make a statement; [68204]

  (5) what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority ensures that sufficient schemes are available to provide the opportunity of appropriate education for all pupils with autistic spectrum disorder in their area; and if he will make a statement; [68205]

  (6) if he has obtained from each local education authority a copy of the guidance which they make available to the public on the educational services for children with autistic spectrum disorder; and if he will make a statement; [68206]

  (7) what steps he is taking to ensure that the guidance on educational services for children with autistic spectrum disorder, available to the public from local education authorities, is fair and consistent throughout England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [68207]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Schools and local education authorities are under a duty to identify children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders, and to arrange provision which meets the needs of individual children. Statements of special educational need set out the range of difficulties and the special provision to be made for the education of children with the most severe and complex needs, including a proportion of the children whose needs arise from autistic spectrum disorders. When arranging provision, after consultation with parents, local education authorities are able to place children with autism in mainstream schools, SEN units in mainstream schools, special schools or specialist autism schools, either in the maintained, voluntary or independent sectors. The Department is funding five regional pilots which will be looking at arrangements for the co-ordination of SEN provision and services. It is expected that some of the projects will focus on provision for pupils with autism. The Department aims to extend regional co-operation arrangements to all areas from April 2000.

  Under the Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 1998 local education authorities are required to publish annually information about the arrangements they make for children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders.
  485
  Authorities may, if they wish, publish specific guidance on the arrangements they make for children with autistic spectrum disorders. Any such guidance must be consistent with authorities' duties under the law and have regard to the SEN Code of Practice.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what grants have been made by his Department to Shropshire County Council in addition to revenue support grant in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; [68439]

  (2) what grants have been made by his Department to Telford and Wrekin Council in 1998–99. [68440]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the grants, in addition to revenue support grant, made available by the Department for Education and Employment to Shropshire County Council in 1997–98 and 1998–99, and to Telford and Wrekin Council in 1998–99 are shown in the tables. For the Standards Fund the figures shown include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Grants made available to Shropshire County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  1,255,500

  School Improvement Initiatives

  50,000

  National Curriculum Assessment—Verification KS1

  74,300

  National Curriculum Assessment—Supply Cover KS1

  111,500

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  59,500

  KS3 Non-core Teacher Assessment

  18,600

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  160,700

  Special Educational Needs

  123,300

  Qualifications—GNVQ Provision

  95,900

  Qualifications—Part One GNVQ Pilot

  46,000

  Pupil Behaviour and Discipline Centres

  54,500

  Bilingual Pupils

  27,900

  Drug Prevention and Schools

  44,200

  Training for Careers Teachers

  36,700

  Youth Service

  12,700

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  41,500

  School Security

  195,300

  Child Protection

  26,000

  Specialist Schools

  115,600

  Baseline Assessment

  86,500

  Primary Performance Tables

  5,600

  Books for Schools

  232,996

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  185,000

  Total

  3,059,796

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  922,707

  473,347

  School Leadership: NPQH

  60,307

  29,250

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  20,102

  9,750

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  32,150

  16,493

  486

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Council

  £

  Grant title

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Early Years Training and Development

  80,150

  25,025

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  —

  291,000

  Baseline Assessment

  63,632

  32,044

  Assessment: Verification KS1

  26,194

  23,088

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  69,059

  45,732

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  38,516

  21,398

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  40,786

  19,902

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  303,225

  181,723

  Summer Literacy Schools

  18,000

  20,000

  Family Literacy

  28,000

  28,000

  Special Educational Needs

  122,720

  —

  Qualifications: GNVQ, AS/A Level, Key Skills etc.

  92,141

  24,701

  Qualifications: Part One GNVQ Pilot

  10,000

  —

  Work Related Learning at KS4

  —

  50,000

  Improving Attendance

  —

  99,250

  Improving Behaviour

  —

  117,000

  Improving Attendance and Behaviour

  36,100

  —

  Behaviour and Discipline Projects

  —

  54,600

  Drug Prevention

  40,080

  21,098

  Youth Service

  12,807

  5,000

  School Security

  128,600

  65,972

  Specialist Schools

  116,900

  —

  National Grid for Learning

  672,000

  322,792

  Books for Schools

  152,911

  81,739

  Children's Parliament

  190

  110

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  94,449

  46,980

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teacher

  3,740

  1,870

  Capital Work to reduce class sizes

  591,000

  328,700

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  329,725

  —

  Energy Management

  71,243

  40,025

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  823,348

  442,200

  Total

  5,000,782

  2,918,789

  Public Employment Services
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of increasing the capacity of the Public Employment Services as suggested in the explanatory memorandum on European Community document Corn (1998) 641 final. [68350]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The measures referred to in the European Document are consistent with the existing role of the Employment Service in the delivery of the UK Employment Action Plan, which sets out the UK's approach to implementing the Employment Guidelines. No further costs are envisaged.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department will continue to have the main responsibility in Wales for policy questions arising from the Commission
  487
  communication "Modernising Public Employment Services" to support the European Employment Strategy after the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. [68348]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The proposals for the future role of public Employment Services, outlined in the Commission communication "Modernising Public Employment Services" to support the European Employment Strategy, relates to reserved matters for which the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will retain policy responsibility after the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government funds nursery places on the assumption of 100 per cent. take-up. [68326]

  Ms Hodge
  Early education places for 4-year-olds in maintained schools are funded through Education Standard Spending according to the number of eligible pupils in the Annual Schools' Census; places in the private and voluntary sectors, together with additional places in the maintained sector, attract a per capita grant calculated from termly headcounts.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision his Department has made for the funding of early years provision in the private and voluntary sectors for 4-year-olds with special educational needs. [68323]

  Ms Hodge
  Local Education Authorities have a duty to arrange the provision specified in a child's statement of special educational needs. They also have the power to supply goods and services to providers of early years education in the private and voluntary sectors to help support 4-year-olds who have special educational needs but who do not have statements. The cost of providing additional support is reflected in each Local Education Authority's SSA allocation.

  Pay and Performance Management
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the technical consultation document on pay and performance management following the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change". [68913]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am pleased to announce that, following up the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change", my Department has today published a Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library.

  School Teachers Review Body
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the report of the School Teachers Review Body. [68914]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The 1999 report of the School Teachers' Review Body has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the Chairman and members of the Review Body for their work.
  488
  In the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government made it clear that public sector pay settlements would need to be fair, affordable, and consistent with the targets for public service improvements we have set. That is why new arrangements were announced in the CSR for the Pay Review Bodies, designed to ensure a closer and more effective link between pay settlements and departmental expenditure limits and service delivery targets. As part of these arrangements, the Prime Minister asked the School Teachers' Review Body to ensure that, in making its recommendations, four key considerations set out in the CSR were taken into account:
  recruitment, retention and motivation of the groups concerned the requirements on Departments to meet their output targets for the delivery of services
  requirements on departments to stay within their three year expenditure limits, and
  the Government's inflation target, requiring responsibility in pay settlements across the public and private sectors.

  I am satisfied that the recommendations meet these considerations. Accordingly I have decided to accept the Review Body's main recommendations to restructure the pay of headteachers from September, at a cost of 0.1% of the total teacher paybill in 1999–2000 and 0.2% in a full year, and to award a general increase of 3.5% to the pay of all teachers from 1 April. The full cost of the settlement in 1999–2000 will be 3.6%. This will be affordable within my Department's Expenditure Limits announced in the CSR in July (Cm 4011), and is fully consistent with the targets for improved services set out in my Department's Public Service Agreement published in December (Cm 4181). It is in line with the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to public spending and its commitment to deliver high quality public services and low inflation.

  The restructuring of headteachers' pay is necessary to enable schools, especially small primary schools, to recruit, retain and motivate headteachers of the quality that we need to improve standards of education. It recognises the role headteachers will play in making the proposals in the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" work, and it recognises the responsibility headteachers have always had for managing and improving the performance of their teachers and schools. The Review Body makes it clear that headteachers' pay should be linked to their performance against agreed targets, with no automatic increases. It recommends improvements in the performance management and review mechanism for headteachers and I propose those improvements, subject to consultation, with effect from September 1999.

  I am grateful to the Review Body for recommending a general increase at a level which is fair and which I can implement without staging. I hope teachers will welcome the fact that they will receive their pay increase in full on 1 April this year.

  The Green Paper published in December 1998 set out the Government's wide-ranging proposals for modernising and strengthening the teaching profession. An extensive consultation is now underway. This current pay settlement is an excellent springboard for the further changes from September 2000 which I hope to put in place following the consultation, and the continuing advice of the Review Body. These changes will make the

  489
  teaching profession better paid and more attractive, and they will also create better links between pay and performance. I welcome the Review Body's constructive approach to the need to reward good performance, and I look forward to next year's exercise extending this approach to the determination of the pay of all teachers.

  I will not initiate consultation with the teacher associations, the employers' organisations and other interested parties, as required under section (2)1 of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, before I make provision by order for teachers' pay and conditions in 1999–2000.

  National Year of Reading
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the television advertisement and booklet accompanying the National Year of Reading. [68525]

  Mr. Mudie
  The cost of the television advertisement was £1,400,000.

  The cost of producing the accompanying booklet was £177,000 for the English language version with a further £46,000 for ethnic minority language, Braille and audio cassette versions.

  We had requests for 822,000 leaflets from parents and schools following the advertising campaign which emphasised the valuable contribution which parents can make to their children's reading.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the total cost of increasing teachers' salaries by(a) 0.1 per cent.,
  (b) 3.5 per cent., (c) 4.0 per cent. and (d) 4.5 per cent. [68215]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figures in England and Wales are as follows:(a) £12 million, (b) £423 million, (c) £484 million, and (d) £544 million. Figures for England alone are: (a) £11 million, (b) £398 million, (c) £454 million and (d) £511 million.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much of the extra expenditure on education over the next three years, announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review, has been set aside to fund increases in teachers' pay in each year. [68218]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The cost of teachers' pay awards in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be contained within the Department Expenditure Limits announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review in July (Cm 4011). In respect of 2000–01 and 2001–02, up to £1 billion is available within the Departmental Expenditure Limits to support implementation of proposals in the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change".

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the next teachers' pay award will be funded in full by central Government. [68718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment today to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick),Official Report, columns 487–89.

  Failing LEAs (Contractors)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) profit-making organisations and (b) non-profit-making organisations have requested details of his Department's proposals to allow contractors to take over key functions of failing local education authorities, in response to his Department's recent advertisement. [68530]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our recent advertisements asked for expressions of interest from organisations able to perform LEA functions and those able to provide management consultancy services. As of Wednesday, 27 January, my Department had sent out information about both consultancy and the provision of functions to 644 interested parties. The deadline for the receipt of formal expressions of interest is 15 February.

  Teachers (Upper Salary Scale)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates his Department has made of the number of teachers who would qualify to transfer to the upper salary scale proposed in his recent Green Paper,"Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change". [68529]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In order to pass the new performance threshold proposed in the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" (Cm 4164), teachers would have to demonstrate that they had consistently achieved national standards centred on strong classroom performance. The number of teachers transferring to the upper salary spine will depend on the outcomes of individual assessments against these national standards. The Government expect that, over time, a majority of teachers will be of a standard to pass the threshold if they wish to do so.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether supply teachers will be eligible to apply for the performance assessment for transfer to the upper salary scale proposed in his recent Green Paper; and who would be responsible for carrying out such an assessment. [68526]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management following up the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" was published today. In it we confirm that unattached teachers and supply teachers employed by the local education authority will be able to apply for threshold assessment provided that they have reached spine point 9 for qualifications and experience and if they can demonstrate that they meet the national threshold standards. Normally, their applications would be assessed by the relevant head, teacher in charge or senior manager with appropriate line management responsibility, and validated by an external assessor. In exceptional circumstances, the teacher may need to apply direct to the external assessor through the local education authority.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the additional cost to the teachers' salary bill of(a) 25 per cent., (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 75 per cent. of teachers progressing to the upper salary scale proposed in his recent Green Paper. [68528]
  491
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change" proposes that teachers successful at the new performance threshold could receive a salary increase of up to 10 per cent. It would be for governing bodies to decide, on the advice of the head, where on the upper pay spine to place teachers who had passed the threshold assessment, assigned on a combination of excellent performance and extra responsibility. This decision will determine the exact salary level for each teacher.

  As estimated 220,000 full-time equivalent teachers in England will have reached spine point nine for qualifications and experience by September 1999 and will therefore be eligible to apply for assessment at the performance threshold to the new upper pay spine.

  For every £1,000 of average salary increase, the annual paybill cost of 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. passing would be some £65 million or £125 million or £190 million respectively.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role he proposes for the School Teachers' Review Body in determining salaries for teachers on the upper salary scale proposed in his recent Green Paper. [68527]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Following the outcome of the consultation on the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change", the Secretary of State will be asking the School Teachers' Review Body to make recommendations which would also cover the values of pay points on the proposed upper salary spine.

  Fair Funding Proposals
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will introduce regulations to prevent local authorities from funding the cost of any redundancies amongst local authority staff, arising from reduced use of local authority services by schools under the Government's Fair Funding proposals, from the Individual Schools Budget; and if he will make a statement. [68219]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The statutory guidance on school financing schemes recently issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not envisage that redundancy costs should be met from schools' budget shares where the staff in question were not school-based. There would therefore seem to be no reason why local education authorities should wish to include provision for such costs in their Individual Schools Budgets. The Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 1999 permit the central retention by LEAs of funds to meet redundancy costs which are not properly chargeable to individual schools.

  GCSE (Digital Broadcasts)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation he has undertaken with and what representations he has received from(a) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (b) the teacher trade unions, (c) examination boards, (d) employers' organisations and (e) further and higher education institutions, on the principle of the establishment of digital broadcasting services to support the GCSE curriculum. [68214]
  492
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The potential role of digital broadcasting services was raised in consultation on the National Grid for Learning, launched in October 1997. As well as being publicly available, the consultation document ("Connecting the Learning Society") was widely distributed, including to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), teacher organisations, further and higher education institutions and examination boards, and employer organisations. DfEE received almost 1,000 responses to the consultation. The outcomes of consultation were published in 'The Grid—Your Views', and are available on the Internet at http://www.vtc.ngfl.gov.uk/vtc/library/pub.html.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment from which budgetary head funds will be made available for the provision of specific digital broadcasting services to support the GCSE curriculum. [68217]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Funds for any educational broadcasting service to support the GCSE curriculum will be paid from programme expenditure within DfEE's expenditure limit.

  Schools (Digital Broadcasts)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools currently have facilities to enable the reception of digital broadcasting services; and what is his estimate of how many will have such facilities by the end of(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [68216]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Such equipment is only now becoming available and schools may deploy resources within the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund Grant to make appropriate purchases. Take-up will be assessed in the 1999 DfEE survey of information and communications technology (ICT) in schools.

  Adjudicators
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1998,Official Report,
  column 244, if he will make a statement on the appointment of adjudicators as provided under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. [68531]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Thursday 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 480.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the role of the Advisory Committee members of the Equal Opportunities Commission; and what remuneration members of the Committee receive. [68521]

  Ms Hodge
  The Equal Opportunities Commission is an executive non-Departmental public body established under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 with a statutory remit to work towards the elimination of discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, and to keep under review the workings of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act 1970. It is not
  493
  an Advisory Committee. The Commission comprises up to 15 Commissioners. The Chair's salary for 1998–99 was set at £48,930. The two Deputy Chairs receive a daily fee of £237. Other Commissioners receive a daily fee of £123.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chevening House
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions he has made use of Chevening House; and how many of these occasions have included(a) official Government business and (b) the reception of official visitors. [66006]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The running costs of Chevening House and Estate are borne not by the Government but by the Chevening Trust. I meet the costs of food, drink and laundry for myself, my family and private guests.

  I chaired a meeting at Chevening House on 5 January 1999 to discuss medium-term strategy for the FCO.

  I hosted a dinner for the US Foreign Minister, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, on 27 December 1997, and had a meeting with the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Jozias van Aartsen, on 17 August 1998.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost of the compensation for loss of pension rights which his Department has agreed to pay to the 14 former employees of GCHQ. [66489]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The additional pension benefits will be provided through a special scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972. That scheme will be limited to the fourteen who were dismissed. The level of compensation will reflect two factors; the impact on pensionable pay on retirement of the decisions about pay taken by GCHQ in the light of the refusal of the fourteen to resign from their trade union; and the loss of pensionable service. The cost will be met from within existing resources.

  European Commission (Firearms)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the eligibility of European Commission protection officers to carry firearms in the United Kingdom. [67451]

  Ms Quin
  The eligibility of European Commission protection officers to carry firearms in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Home Office, and subject to the issuing of a permit by the Metropolitan Police under the authority of the Home Secretary. To date, no such permit has been issued to a Commission protection officer. One would be issued only in exceptional circumstances, and then only if the protection officer were accompanied by an armed Metropolitan Police Special Branch Officer.

  Muslim Council of Britain
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting with the Muslim Council of Britain. [67960]
  494
  Mr. Fatchett
  I met a range of representatives of the British Muslim Community including the Muslim Council of Britain on 20 January. I briefed them on the situation regarding the British nationals currently being held in Yemen, especially the efforts made so far by Ministers and FCO officials on behalf of the detainees. I reassured them that all British Citizens are given equal consular protection and support, regardless of their creed, race or religion.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Special Envoy of the Prime Minister of India. [67958]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I had wide ranging talks with Mr. Mishra and Indian officials on various issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit India. [67959]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor I have any plans to visit India at present. I visited India in November 1998, when I was able to hold a range of bilateral talks.

  Entry Clearance Interviews
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to announce which post will be used as a pilot for the recording of entry clearance interviews. [67957]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department is consulting candidate Posts and preparing the necessary procedures for the pilot project. I expect this preparatory process to take several weeks. We will announce the name of the Post chosen for the pilot scheme as soon as possible.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to announce the name of the new British High Commissioner to Bangladesh. [67961]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There is no date for this announcement yet. It is normal procedure to announce appointments three to four months in advance of change over.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what end use monitoring his Department has undertaken into the use of the electro-shock batons trans-shipped from the United States to Saudi Arabia via the United Kingdom in 1993. [68189]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not routinely undertake end-use monitoring once an export licence has been granted; potential end-use considerations are taken into account as part of the licence handling process before export. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 65–66, a ban on the export of electro-shock equipment and other equipment which could be used for torture.

  British Council
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the British Council's record of investment in(a) its premises and (b) information technology. [68307]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Council's investment strategy is discussed with the FCO as part of the process of agreeing the Council's Corporate Plan. The Council requires the prior approval of the FCO for investment of over £500,000 for property and £250,000 for other projects, and it is responsible for preparing post-project appraisals.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68401]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information is as follows:

  (a) None;

  (b) None;

  (c) None;

  (d) In 1998–99, the FCO became the sole sponsor Department for the British Council's work as the UK's principal agency for cultural relations abroad. This will not affect the level of Government funding (previously shared with DFID).

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68417]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Chevening Scholarships
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Chevening scholarships have been awarded, and at what cost, in each of the past five years. [68337]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The numbers and costs of Chevening Scholarships awarded in the past five years are:

  Year

  Scholars1

  £ million

  1998–99

  3,967

  27.2

  1997–98

  4,053

  27

  1996–97

  3,967

  25.8

  1995–96

  3,967

  26.9

  1994–95

  3,880

  24.9

  1 Including both new scholars and continuing awards

  These figures include the jointly funded Chevening awards, co-sponsored by the FCO, British universities, and commercial and other partners.
  496
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Chevening scholarship programme; how many scholarships, at what cost are planned for the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [68338]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Chevening scholarship programme is our main scholarship scheme overseas. It is co-funded by the FCO and DfID. It has a well developed procedure for selection of students, and for maintaining contact when they return home. Chevening Scholars benefit from studying at Higher Education Institutions in the UK, experience the British way of life, make valuable contacts with British counterparts, and return home with a better understanding of the UK and of British values. On return home they make an important contribution to the life of their own countries.

  The estimated numbers of Chevening awards and costs for the next three years, assuming the present basis of funding continues, are:

  Year

  Scholars1

  £ million

  1999–2000

  3,985

  30

  2000–01

  4,025

  30.2

  2001–02

  4,065

  30.6

  1Including both new scholars and continuing awards

  These figures include the jointly funded Chevening awards, co-sponsored by the FCO, British universities, and commercial and other partners. A cross-Whitehall study is being undertaken of how to attract more foreign students to the UK. An assessment of the Chevening scheme is included in this study.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the first annual report on arms exports. [68791]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The report will be published as soon as possible.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) of 19 January 1999,Official Report, columns 436–37, for what reasons his Department describes the Bay of Gibraltar as the Bay of Algeciras; and when it first adopted this description. [68523]

  Ms Quin
  The bay to the west of Gibraltar is known both as the Bay of Gibraltar and the Bay of Algeciras. The extent of British Territorial Waters in the bay is as described in my answer of 19 January 1999,Official Report, columns 436–37, to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, columns 148–49, concerning Senator Pinochet, what discussions his

  497
  Department held with the Chilean Embassy on 15–16 October about the possible arrest of Senator Pinochet. [68491]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The discussions with the Chilean Ambassador on 15 and 16 October referred to in my earlier answer took place before the receipt of the request from the Spanish authorities for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet and did not relate to that subject.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, columns 148–49, concerning Senator Pinochet, if his Department informed the Chilean Ambassador on 16 October that the Metropolitan Police were interested in Senator Pinochet's possible diplomatic immunity. [68490]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No. The inquiry from the Metropolitan Police about Senator Pinochet's possible diplomatic immunity was received after the telephone conversation between this Department and the Chilean Ambassador.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, columns 148–49, concerning General Pinochet, if the discussions between his Department and the Metropolitan Police on 16 October 1998 took place before his Department was telephoned by the Chilean Ambassador on 16 October. [68489]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The contacts with the Metropolitan Police concerning immunity took place after the conversation with the Chilean Ambassador on 16 October. Contacts with the Metropolitan Police before the conversation on 16 October concerned only the request from the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid to interview Senator Pinochet, received on 14 October and of which the Chilean Ambassador was aware.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what export licences have been granted since 1 May 1997 for the export of land mines; if he will list the countries and the dates when the licences were granted; and how many land mines were included under each export licence. [64523]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The export of land mines is controlled under entry ML4 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which also covers bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles and related equipment and accessories. The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 4 December 1998, 890 individual licences were issued covering the export of goods with the relevant rating: 844 Standard Individual Export Licences and 46 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs).

  It would entail disproportionate cost to determine if any of these licences covered land mines. However, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the
  498
  Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 21 May 1997, Official Report, columns 72–73, which set out the Government's policy on the import, export, transfer, manufacture and use of anti-personnel land mines.

  The information on licences should be considered in light of the answer given by the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  The Government are also committed to reporting annually on the state of strategic export controls and their application. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), stated in his answer of 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 149, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the annual report will list by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued in each equipment category and give details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted. This information will also be given in future reports.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hollis Industries Plc
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department received the letter of 15 July from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), passed on by the Registrar of Companies, regarding alleged accounting offences by Hollis Industries plc. [65593]

  Mr. Byers
  On 17 July 1998.

  Rt. Hon. Member for Hartlepool
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry was informed of the loan from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). [65598]

  Mr. Byers
  On 17 December 1998.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what limits the Government have set on Post Office expenditure on acquisitions this year and next; and what is his current forecast of the Post Office contribution to the public sector's revenues; [66228]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the acquisition of German Parcels on (a) the Post Office's net cash generation and (b) the level of overall public borrowing. [66153]

  Mr. Byers
  Under the new financial framework for the Post Office, announced in the House on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 21–24, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the proportion of profits removed from the business will be halved, enabling it to finance greater levels of investment.

  499
  In addition, the Government recognise that larger growth investments may require prudent borrowing. Post Office proposals for the largest strategic investments, including acquisitions, will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  The Post Office contribution to the public sector (apart from normal corporate taxes) was expected to be £310 million for 1998–99, and £207 million for 1999–2000, the latter based on an estimate of 50 per cent. of post-tax profits. Adjustments to these external financing limits to take account of UK borrowing to finance the purchase of German Parcels will be made shortly.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost to the Post Office of the acquisition of German Parcels. [66154]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office has asked that the precise details of this specific transaction not be released for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The financial implications of Post Office investments will properly be reflected in both published Government and Post Office accounts.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he intends to submit to the European Commission on the designation of new assisted areas for regional selective assistance. [66132]

  Mr. Byers
  No decisions have yet been made on the areas that will be proposed to the European Commission.

  Siemens
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will require Siemens to repay their start-up grant. [66134]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 9 November 1998, Official Report, columns 57–58.

  Armscor
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what investigations Her Majesty's Government have carried out into the affairs of Armscor; [65125]

  (2) what dealings representatives of Her Majesty's Government have had with Armscor. [65126]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Since the April 1994 democratic elections in South Africa, the Government, primarily through the Ministry of Defence, have had some contact with Armscor.

  The DTI has not carried out any investigations into the affairs of Armscor. However, a Customs and Excise investigation into alleged breaches of UK export controls led to proceedings being initiated in 1984 against four South Africans connected with Armscor. The four were bailed, but failed to return for trial. The charges were withdrawn in December 1994.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the quantity of small arms for which 500
  export licences were granted in each of the last five years in respect of (a) China, (b) Zambia, (c) the Sudan and (d) Serbia and Montenegro. [65884]

  Dr. Howells
  The export of specified small arms is controlled under entries ML1 and PL5018 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which also cover specified accessories and specially designed components. The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998, 60 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Zambia of goods covered by these ratings. Two Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were also issued covering such exports on which Zambia was a permitted destination. It would entail disproportionate cost to determine the quantity of small arms covered by these licences.

  Individual licences issued in each year covering the export to Zambia of goods with the ratings ML1 or PL5018

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with rating

  ML1 Number of OIELs issued covering goods with rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with rating

  Ratings PL5018 Number of OIELs issued covering goods with rating

  1994

  9

  0

  6

  0

  1995

  10

  0

  12

  0

  1996

  12

  0

  6

  0

  1997

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1998

  1

  2

  0

  0

  In the same period, no individual export licences were issued for the export of goods with these ratings to consignees or end-users in the People's Republic of China, Sudan or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  There is no internationally agreed definition of "small arms". It is possible that some weapons controlled under other ratings could be called small arms; for instance a 12-bore shotgun with a calibre greater than 12.7mm would be controlled under entry ML2.

  Certain Open General Export Licences (OGELs) cover, for a range of specified countries (including Zambia), the return of weapons controlled under entries ML1 and PL5018, subject to the conditions of the licence in each case. These include the Open General Export Licence (Export After Repair: Military Goods). Zambia is also a permitted destination on the Open General Export Licence (Export After Exhibition: Military Goods). The export of such weapons to Zambia is also covered by the Open General Export Licence (Export for Repair/Replacement Under Warranty: Military Goods). Copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the

  501
  period are in the Library of the House. No OGELs cover the export of such goods to the People's Republic of China, Sudan or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been granted for the export of military and paramilitary goods to Sri Lanka for the last five years, in each case listing the categories under which the licences were issued. [66377]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998, 360 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 34 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licenses issued between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998 covering the export to Sri Lanka of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  73

  1

  ML2

  16

  1

  ML3

  35

  1

  ML4

  45

  4

  ML5

  14

  3

  ML6

  10

  3

  ML7

  4

  0

  ML8

  1

  1

  ML9

  4

  0

  ML10

  12

  8

  ML11

  102

  8

  ML13

  6

  6

  ML14

  5

  1

  ML15

  22

  1

  ML18

  0

  3

  ML21

  2

  2

  ML22

  3

  1

  PL5001

  2

  1

  PL5002

  8

  0

  PL5006

  1

  0

  PL5017

  2

  1

  PL5018

  6

  0

  PL5021

  3

  0

  PL5027

  1

  0

  PL5030

  2

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.
  502
  In addition, certain goods on the Military List may have been exported to Sri Lanka under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for the export of(a) paramilitary, (b) security and (c) police equipment to Indonesia have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) revoked since 10 May 1998; and if he will indicate the export licence category in each case. [66616]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 11 May and 31 December 1998, 17 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 8 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Indonesia of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. In the same period, no such licences were revoked and one standard individual export licence application, covering goods with a rating of ML1, was refused.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual licenses issued between 10 May and 31 December 1998 covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML4

  0

  1

  ML5

  1

  1

  ML6

  0

  1

  ML9

  1

  0

  ML10

  11

  3

  ML11

  3

  4

  ML14

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  1

  ML21

  1

  2

  ML22

  0

  2

  PL5017

  2

  0

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Indonesia under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said in her answers to my hon. Friend of 8 April 1998, Official Report, columns 345–46, and 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 227, it is not possible to break

  503
  down these data in the manner requested as the equipment covered by many entries in the Military List could be used by military, paramilitary or police end-users.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences are required for(a) military goods and (b) dual-use goods exported by the Crown. [66236]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The export of controlled military goods is controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, made under the provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. As the 1939 Act does not bind the Crown, no licence is required. As regards exports of dual-use goods, I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 1 December 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), Official Report, columns 123–24.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what licences have been granted to the Crown Agents since 1 May 1997 for military or dual-use goods, by category; [66237]

  (2) if he will list the export licences for tear gas or plastic bullets (a) given to and (b) applied for by the Crown Agents since 1 May 1997; [66239]

  (3) how many export licences have been given to the Crown Agents since 1 May 1997 for goods in the ML7 category. [66240]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answers 19 January 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what export licences have been issued to International Military Sales Ltd. since 1 May 1997; [66242]

  (2) what documentation has been required for export licences issued to International Military Sales Ltd. [66243]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answers 19 January 1999]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and no standard or open individual licences are recorded as having been issued to this company between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998. This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what military or dual-use goods have been exported without licences by the Crown Agents since 1 May 1997, by category. [66238]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry maintains records of applications for licences required under the Export of Goods (Control) Order (1994), EC Regulation 3381–94 and related Council Decision 94/942/CFSP, or the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996. It does not compile records either of licensed exports or of exports for which no licence has been issued.
  504
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export licences granted to Procurement Services International to export military equipment to Indonesia. [67573]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list military equipment exported to Indonesia since 1 May 1997. [67602]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then President of the Board of Trade on 2 December 1997,Official Report, columns 124–26, to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my predecessor's replies of 8 April 1998, Official Report, columns 345–46, and of 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 227, and to PQ number 66616 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), answered today, Official Report, columns 502–03.

  I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 149.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate the overseas licensed production and export of military, security and police equipment by a UK company in a second country; and what representations he has received on these matters. [66891]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 12 January 1999, Official Report, columns 149–50, and to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 364, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley on 12 January 1999, Official Report, column 151.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the operation by other states of a legal right to advance public scrutiny of export licence applications for military, security and police equipment transfers. [66893]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: In the course of our review of the proposals contained in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls in the light of responses received, we are also examining, where it is relevant to do so, legislation and practice in other countries.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures are currently available to prevent British manufacturers of equipment entered in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, from licensing production in countries where such equipment might be used for internal repression or international aggression, or pose a risk to regional stability; [67896]
  505
  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that UK and European export control mechanisms are not undermined by licensed production agreements; and if he will make a statement. [67892]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer of 12 January 1999,Official Report, columns 149–50, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for the export of goods entered in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 to Indonesia have been granted and denied since 1 May 1997. [67895]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then President of the Board of Trade on 2 December 1997, Official Report, columns 124–26, to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my predecessor's replies of 8 April 1998, Official Report, columns 345–46 and of 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 227 and to PQ number 66616 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), answered today, Official Report, columns 502–03.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for the export of goods entered in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 have been granted since 1 May 1997 in respect of(a) Afghanistan, (b) Angola, (c) Rwanda and (d) Yugoslavia. [67898]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 8 January 1999, 23 standard individual export licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in the specified countries of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. In the same period, no such Open Individual Export Licences were issued.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all the relevant ratings.

  Individual licences issued between 2 May 1997 and 8 January 1999 covering the export of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Afghanistan

  ML4

  1

  ML13

  1

  Angola

  ML4

  1

  ML6

  4

  ML11

  7

  ML13

  1

  PL5031

  1

  PL5033

  1

  Rwanda

  ML6

  1

  ML11

  4

  506

  Individual licenses issued between 2 May 1997 and 8 January 1999 covering the exports of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  ML10

  1

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of my predecessor's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the planned contents of the annual report on strategic export controls and their application as proposed in the White Paper "Strategic Export Controls". [66894]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 149.

  British Airways
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what issues more progress is needed before a final decision can be announced on the application for approval of the alliance between British Airways and American Airlines; [66641]

  (2) when he expects to be able to announce a final decision on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines; [66642]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of his predecessor's letter to British Airways in reply to a letter dated 2 December seeking deferment of a final decision on the alliance with American Airlines; and if he will make a statement. [66643]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The Alliance cannot be implemented until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions has concluded a new liberalised air services agreement with the United States. I could not take a final decision on the alliance until the picture on the negotiations is clearer. Assuming satisfactory progress on the air services agreement, there would also need to be further work to be done on the details of slot allocation, and the industry wide issues identified by the Commission also need to be progressed. Given the current position, it is not possible for me to assess when I will be able to take a final decision.

  The substance of my predecessor's letter to British Airways has already been made public. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), on 17 December 1998, Official Report, column 697.

  Former Ministers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many severance payments have been made to Ministers who have quit office in his Department since 2 May 1997; and if he will list(a) the former ministers concerned and (b) the sums paid. [66593]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: Severance payments to Ministers are made in accordance with the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 which provides that Ministers who have not attained the age of 65, and are not reappointed to a relevant Ministerial or other paid office within three weeks of their leaving office are eligible for a severance payment of one quarter of the annual salary being paid.

  Two Ministers who have left the Department since 2 May 1997 qualify for such payments—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who was Under-Secretary of State at the time of his departure, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was Secretary of State.

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates the Minister for Science resigned from the boards of(a) Diatech and (b) Innotech Innovation. [66695]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The Minister for Science resigned as a Director of Diatech Limited and of Innotech Investment Limited on 31 July 1998.

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66720]

  Mr. Wills
  The DTI does not use measures of local deprivation in considering allocation of funds to local projects. Applications for regional selective assistance are considered on their merits, in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  Energy Agencies
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will(a) list (i) the number of energy agencies in the United Kingdom and (ii) give details of how they are funded and (b) state what plans he has to increase the number of energy agencies in the United Kingdom. [67686]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  Seventeen energy agencies have been established in the UK under the European Commission's SAVE II energy efficiency programme, and I understand that a further five are completing the contractual procedures. Detailed funding arrangements are a matter for the Commission and the agency concerned, though, in general, the SAVE II programme provides up to 150,000 Euros of start-up funding: after three years, the agencies are expected to become self financing. We publicise the annual call for proposals under the SAVE H programme, and encourage and assist UK interests to submit effective applications.

  Electricity Supply (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what applications he has received for the continuation of the supply carried by the Lackenby-Picton-Shipton line beyond Shipton; [67466]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the requirement for the National Grid to apply for further consents to transfer electricity south of Shipton; [67464]

  (3) if the National Grid has obtained the necessary consents for its proposals for the transfer of power supply south of Shipton. [67465]

  Mr. Battle
  The Lackenby-Picton-Shipton line, for which various consents were granted on 26 March 1998, will connect with an existing line from Shipton to Osbaldwick which forms part of the national transmission system and which was granted consent in 1964. This will allow the transfer of electricity south of Shipton. No further applications have been received in respect of this transfer.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67847]

  Mr. Byers
  We aim to make key departmental information as widely available as possible and to put departmental White and Green Papers on the DTI Internet web site. This is useful to people with visual impairments since they can adjust their software to increase the text size to meet their requirements.

  It has not been our usual practice to offer texts on floppy disk simply because there has not been a demand. Availability of texts via the Internet may now be satisfying that demand but if we receive an ad hoc request for a text on disk we are happy to produce and supply it.

  Officials are due to meet representatives of the RNIB in early February to discuss what further steps the Department could take to help the visually impaired access DTI material.

  Death Penalty Equipment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a ban on the brokering, promotion and installation of death penalty technology and equipment by UK companies; and what representations he has received on these matters. [66892]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 65–66, which announced a ban on the export of certain, specified equipment that has been used in torture. I understand that there is no present intention to extend the scope of this ban, and that there is no accepted definition of "death penalty technology", which could encompass technology relating to the production and use of a very wide range of items. The Government's proposals for new powers to control trafficking and brokering of the goods covered by the ban

  509
  announced by the Foreign Secretary were set out in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989), published in July 1998. The Government have received a number of responses to the White Paper, and regularly receive representations on various issues relating to strategic export controls.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 359–60, concerning the tendering process for the award of a contract by Action 2000 (1) which of the companies invited to tender have previously done work for Action 2000; [67443]

  (2) what the closing date was for the receipt of tenders; and on what date a decision was made as to which tender was successful; [67445]

  (3) on what date the three companies were invited to tender; and in what way the tender opportunity was advertised; [67444]

  (4) on what date and where the three companies presented their proposals to Action 2000 and an independent representative from Business Link; [67442]

  (5) how many companies were visited prior to the issue of invitations to tender; and what criteria were used in deciding which companies should be invited to tender. [67446]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: This detailed commercial information is a matter for the company. The question has therefore been drawn to the attention of the Chairman of Action 2000.

  BSkyB (Manchester United)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his predecessor received advice from the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry that there was no conflict of interest which prevented him from dealing with competition issues arising from the proposed takeover by BSkyB of Manchester United. [67356]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), on 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 134.

  Departmental Staff (Travel)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the mileage rates currently applicable to staff, indicating what changes have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [67492]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Mileage rates paid to staff using their own cars for official business are as follows:

  Engine Size

  Up to 4000 miles (standard rate) (p)

  over 4000 miles (lower standard rate) (p)

  Up to 1500cc

  35

  20

  1501–2000cc

  45

  25

  over 2000cc

  48

  34

  510
  The rates for the two smaller categories of engine are Inland Revenue calculated Fixed Profit Car Scheme (FPCS) rates. However, for the over 2000cc category, DTI pays significantly lower rates than those published by the Inland Revenue. The DTI rates are 48p and 34p per mile compared to the FPCS rates of 63p and 36p per mile respectively. This policy was introduced to discourage use of large engined cars.

  Other encouragements to use public transport, or less polluting forms of transport than cars are:
  a travel and subsistence policy that promotes the use of public transport over car use
  provision of interest free loans for season ticket and bicycle purchase
  provision of parking facilities for cycles in all DTI buildings and shower facilities in some;

  DTI is currently reviewing its travel policy and will shortly be producing a green transport plan.

  Football Clubs (Media Rights)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Government policy on football clubs buying media rights to football coverage. [67334]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the general issue of closer ownership ties between football clubs and media companies, and the possible impact which any such ties may have on the televising of football matches, football merchandising, and the choice available to football supporters.

  On the question of ownership, the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) advises on acquisitions which qualify for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Where a merger raises concerns it can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation. All cases are considered on their individual merits.

  Separately from the arrangements for scrutinising mergers, if any links between media companies and football clubs were to lead to allegations of anti-competitive behaviour or abuse of a dominant position, then, in the first instance, it would be the responsibility of the DGFT to investigate the matter.

  In addition, in April 1996 the DGFT referred to the Restrictive Practices Court (RPC) the FA Premier League rules and certain restrictions in agreements between the Premier League, BSkyB and the BBC for televising football. The case is now a matter for the RPC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no role in the RPC's procedures. It is for the parties to the agreements to demonstrate to the RPC that the restrictions in the agreements are not contrary to the public interest.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a specimen contract between BNFL and a German utility covering reprocessing services, excluding any commercially confidential information. [68427]
  511
  Mr. Battle
  The contracts between BNFL and its German customers are commercially confidential in their entirety, and therefore we are unable to do so.

  Electronic Warfare
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 75, on electronic warfare, what responsibilities of his Department for measures against information warfare will come within the lead responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [68313]

  Mr. Wills
  The Home Secretary's new responsibilities to coordinate action across government and work with the private sector to ensure adequate protection for the UK's critical infrastructure were set out in his reply of 25 January. The specific responsibilities of individual Departments have not changed. The Department of Trade and Industry's responsibilities include the promotion of BS7799 (the Code of practice for Information security management) and the c:cure scheme (the scheme for accredited certification against BS7799). Responsibilities also include the relevant initiatives falling within industry sectors (such as telecommunications, oil, gas, electricity). This includes ensuring that these sectors have sufficient systems and controls to protect themselves against the possibility of attack.

  Electricity Trading
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the reform of electricity trading arrangements are subject to an environmental assessment under the environmental policy guidelines. [68318]

  Mr. Battle
  An environmental appraisal was undertaken in respect of the Government's proposed electricity market reforms, including the reform of electricity trading arrangements, and this was published as part of the Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation (Cm 4071). Environmental concerns will continue to be a central consideration throughout the process of implementing new electricity trading arrangements.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of proposals to extend the Working Time Directive to the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf in respect of(a) cost and (b) safety; and if he will make a statement. [68368]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  On 18 November, the European Commission proposed to extend the Working Time Directive to the excluded sectors. This includes an estimated 20,000 offshore workers in the UK. We are considering the proposals carefully, and will seek to ensure they are balanced, sensible and do not adversely affect the competitiveness or the safety requirements of the industries concerned.
  512
  Due to difficulty in identifying workers within the excluded sectors the cost of applying the Working Time Directive to offshore workers was covered in the original assessment. A copy of this assessment has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Central Arbitration Committee
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the current responsibility of the Central Arbitration Committee and his plans for extending it. [68628]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) currently hears complaints under section 181 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that an employer has failed to disclose information to a recognised trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining. Under section 212 of that Act, it may also arbitrate in trade disputes referred to it by ACAS, though it has not done so for several years.

  The Employment Relations Bill introduced on 27 January contains the Government's proposals both to extend the role of the CAC to deal with applications for trade union recognition and to revise the statutory administrative provisions governing the CAC.

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about extending the domestic gas supply network in the United Kingdom; and what proposals there are for such extensions. [68377]

  Mr. Battle
  This is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply (DGSS) who has duties under the Gas Act 1986 (as amended) to exercise his relevant functions to ensure that reasonable demands for gas conveyed through pipes are met where it is economical, and that there is effective competition in the conveyance of gas to new areas. There are now some seven Public Gas Transporters (PGTs). A consumer seeking a gas connection can either seek a connection from a PGT; purchase and lay the pipe himself, or his PGT can use the system of supplemental charges whereby the cost of the connection is recovered over a protracted period of time through an additional charge on each unit of gas used. I understand that a number of PGTs continue to be granted geographical extensions to their licences and that a growing number of premises is being connected to the main gas system.

  SMEs (Internet)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist the establishment of free local telephone calls to encourage wider use of the Internet among small and medium enterprises. [68464]

  Mr. Wills
  Providing a local call service is not cost-free. Where free local calls are offered, this is usually tied to higher monthly standing charges. BT are free to package their tariffs as they wish as long as their overall prices fall within the price cap set by OFTEL. Other operators are not subject to this price cap. However, BT are not able to price their services below cost as this would be anti-competitive. Average UK business and consumer telecommunications prices as a whole (combining standing charges and call charges on various tariffs) are below US, EU or OECD averages.

  Electronic Commerce Support Centres (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the local electronic commerce support centres in the North-West; and how many small and medium enterprises use their services. [68462]

  Mr. Wills
  Information Society Initiative centres are based in the following TEC areas:

  Bolton/Bury

  Cumbria

  ELTEC

  Manchester

  North and Mid Cheshire Oldham

  Rochdale

  South and East Cheshire

  Stockport and High Peak

  Wigan

  CEWTEC

  St. Helens

  The North West Technology Web also has a network of Technology Management Centres in:

  Blackburn

  Bolton

  Daresbury

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Preston

  Skelmersdale

  (A further centre is currently being set up in Cumbria)

  Other centres which provide similar support to businesses include Connect in Liverpool, which covers Merseyside, and ISaware and Gemisis, which cover Greater Manchester.

  Information on the number of companies using these centres will take time to compile and I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Job Creation (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals for grants towards the creation for new jobs in the Chorley constituency. [68461]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are currently reviewing the Assisted Areas Map. Following a public consultation last summer, it will make proposals to the European Commission for new Assisted Areas Map which will operate from 1 January 2000. No decisions have yet been made on the areas to be proposed. The Competitiveness White Paper announced a range of measures to improve competitiveness and create new jobs throughout the UK.

  Indigenous Industries (Assistance)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for assistance to indigenous industries located outside areas qualifying for regional selective assistance. [68460]

  Mr. Wills
  As announced in the Competitiveness White Paper, the Government are considering new measures to support the growth of smaller businesses in selected areas with particular needs. By working in partnership with the private sector to support the 514
  Enterprise Fund, the Government are also committed to ensuring that small businesses have access to appropriate funding.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to reply to the letter of 8 January from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about an export licence application of Aylesbury Automation Ltd. [68769]

  Dr. Howells
  The hon. Gentleman was sent a reply to his letter on 1 February.

  Ex-miners (Compensation Scheme)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the compensation scheme for ex-miners suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema to become operative. [68542]

  Mr. Battle
  We are close to agreeing with the plaintiffs' solicitors the arrangements for dealing with the 65,000 claims received to date and the further 35,000 claims expected. We are currently tendering for a national spirometry testing programme which we aim to start by the end of March. This should ensure that interim payments and, in some cases, full and final settlements, can begin to be offered to miners who are most severely disabled in the Spring. We hope that full examinations under the agreed Medical Assessment Process will commence in early Summer.

  EU Code of Conduct (Arms Sales)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements will be made to make available in the United Kingdom the annual report on the EU code of conduct on arms sales. [68110]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Member States have yet to decide whether the consolidated report to the Council on the operation of the Code should be made public. This is likely to depend on the content of the report, for example whether it contains information which Member States have agreed should remain confidential, such as details of individual licence refusals and consultations between Member States. Any changes to the Code as a result of the report will by definition be made public.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the principles of the EU code of conduct on arms exports to non-EU nations. [68106]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the adoption of the Code of Conduct in June 1998, the UK drew the Code to the attention of other arms exporting states and, in line with paragraph 11 of the operative provisions, encouraged them to subscribe to its principles. We understand that other EU Member States have taken similar action. The Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus have aligned themselves with the criteria in the Code of Conduct. The UK welcomes the decision of Canada to

  515
  subscribe to the principles and criteria developed in the Code of Conduct.

  East Timor
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Minister has made of the allegations by the Defence Attaché to the Indonesian Embassy in London that British-made military 516
  equipment, including Saracen and Saladin armoured vehicles, are currently in use in occupied East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [67935]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 January 1999, Official Report, column 394. Saracen and Saladin armoured vehicles were exported to Indonesia in the 1960s.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Group on Older People
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who is the Chair of the Ministerial Group on Older People; and if he will list the Group's full membership. [67246]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Prime Minister has asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), to take on the Chair of the Ministerial Group on Older People from Easter. The Minister of State, Department of Health is continuing to chair the Group until then.

  Membership of the Group comprises those Ministers who have particular responsibilities for policy areas which affect older people. It includes the Minister for Women, and Ministers from the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, the Cabinet Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Home Office, HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Employment, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office.

  Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what further progress has been made on formulating plans for vacating the Marsham Street offices and demolishing them. [68316]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 29 January 1999:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me as Chief Executive of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) to respond to your Parliamentary Question about further progress on the future of 2 Marsham Street as management responsibility for the building rests with this Agency.
  As you are already aware, 2 Marsham Street is a Government freehold and until April last year was occupied by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). Since your earlier question on 10 June the building has remained vacant, save for the use of a limited part as a winter shelter for some of London's homeless. This Government initiative will end on 31 March, by which time a decision may well have been taken about the possible reuse of Marsham Street as temporary decant accommodation for another Government Department while its premises are refurbished. Such temporary re-use might last for 3 to 4 years. If re-use of the building cannot be justified in Exchequer terms, arrangements will be made to commence demolition.
  PACE has already advertised the demolition contract through the Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC) and retains in its possession the expressions of interest that were received in
  518
  response to the advertisement. Should Marsham Street remain unoccupied, PACE will review these expressions of interest together with all the other considerations related to the demolition of such a large building in a heavily built-up area like Westminster. On completion of the review, our intention would be to seek Ministerial approval to announce a start date for demolition. The work would be expected to take some 18 months following the letting of a contract.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68394]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  (a) The Security Facilities Division will be closed by 31 March 2001. (b) The Freedom of Information Unit transferred to the Home Office. (c) No responsibilities will be transferred to an executive agency. (d) The Women's Unit and Women's National Commission (NDPB) transferred from the Department of Social Security, UK Anti Drugs Co-ordination Unit from the Privy Council Office, and Head of Government Information &Communications Service from the Home Office. The Performance and Innovation Unit and the Centre for Management &Policy Studies have been newly established within the Department. The Royal Commission on House of Lords reform to be established in March 1999.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68410]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen' s Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he discussed working families tax credit with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as a policy which might be discussed by the Joint Consultative Committee. [68366]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  No.

HEALTH

  Dental Care
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the forthcoming White Paper on Health is planned to be published; and if it will contain a section on dental care. [67108]

  Ms Jowell
  The "Our Healthier Nation" Green Paper included oral health in an indicative list of areas which
  519
  might be suitable for local health improvement targets to tackle health inequalities. The consultation asked how opinion on fluoridation could best be tested at local level. The forthcoming "Our Healthier Nation" White Paper will take full account of the responses to the consultation. We plan to publish the White Paper in the spring.

  Neurology Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the specialist indicators which will be used to assess neurology services under the new NHS National Performance Framework. [66875]

  Mr. Denham
  "The New NHS Modern and Dependable: A National Framework for Assessing Performance" was published for consultation in January 1998 to signal our commitment to a broader based approach to assessing National Health Service performance. It included an initial set of high level performance indicators, which included two composite indicators in the "Effective Delivery of Appropriate Healthcare" area relevant to neurological services. The first was a chronic care management indicator including age and sex standardised admission rates for epilepsy. The second was a discharge from hospital indicator which included the rate of discharge home within 56 days of emergency admission from home with a stroke. Following consultation, the revised NHS performance assessment framework will be published shortly, together with a revised set of initial high level performance indicators. The high level performance indicators will continue to develop over time to ensure they focus on the outcomes that matter most to patients and the public.

  Hospital Merger (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the proposed merger of NHS acute hospital trusts in Leicester; [66916]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact (a) on public funds and (b) on health service provision of the proposed merger of hospital trusts in Leicester; and if he will make a statement; [66919]

  (3) when he intends to start the consultation process on the proposed merger of acute hospital trusts in Leicester; who will be consulted; when he proposes to give his final approval for the proposal; and if he will make a statement. [67951]

  Mr. Denham
  When considering merger proposals the main factor must be the benefits any merger would bring to patients. Any proposal to merge National Health Service trusts will be expected to realise management cost savings of a minimum of £500,000 within two years. These savings would be retained locally for investment in frontline NHS services.

  Ministers have not received direct representation on this issue. However, on 28 January 1999 I announced that a public consultation would be initiated on proposals to merge Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust, Leicester General
  520
  Hospital NHS Trust and Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust. The consultation will be carried out by NHS Executive Trent and will last from 22 February to 22 May. There is a formal requirement for the Department to consult with the Community Health Council but arrangements will also be made locally for the wider public to be invited to make their views known. Ministers will make a decision after the consultation has completed and all representations have been fully considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health took 17 weeks to reply to the letter dated 9 September 1998 from the hon. Member for Christchurch about the continued availability of animal insulin for diabetics; and if he will make a statement. [67344]

  Ms Jowell
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the exceptional length of time taken to reply to his letter. Unfortunately it was misplaced within the Department. As soon as it came to light my noble Friend the Under-Secretary replied immediately.

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures are in place to inform doctors of the symptoms of organophosphate exposure; [67123]

  (2) what measures his Department has taken to educate doctors regarding the recognition and treatment of chronic organophosphate poisoning. [67121]

  Ms Jowell
  The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991, and again with the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in June 1993, to alert doctors to the possibility of adverse effects from exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines and to remind them of the reporting schemes for human adverse reactions to veterinary products operated by the Employment Medical Advisory Service and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Veterinary Medicines Directive. The Chief Medical Officers in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland also wrote to doctors in those countries.

  An article in the October 1995 edition of Chief Medical Officer's Update, a quarterly publication sent to all doctors in England, dealt with both the acute and chronic effects of organophosphates (OPs) and the methods for reporting adverse reactions to them.

  A further article, in the April 1996 edition of Update (England only) informed all doctors of the publication, in the same month, of the new edition of the book "Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners". This book contains a section on the acute and chronic toxic effects of OP insecticides and was sent by all United Kingdom Health Departments to general practices, accident and emergency departments and consultants in communicable disease control (and equivalents) with a covering letter.

  Copies of this book were also sent to the presidents of the Royal Colleges (Royal College of Physicians, Royal

  521
  College of Surgeons, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Pathologists, Faculty of Public Health Medicine and Faculty of Occupational Medicine) under cover of an explanatory letter which encouraged them to draw the book to the attention of their Fellows/Members through their continuing medical education programmes.

  Copies of the book "Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners" are available in the Library.

  A report of a joint working party of the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Psychiatrists set up at the invitation of the Department to advise on clinical aspects of long-term low-dose exposure to OP sheep dips was published in November 1998. An article in the February 1999 edition of the CMO's Update will draw doctors' attention to the report and the recommendations it contains on diagnosis and management of patients.

  Over the coming months, we will also be discussing with other bodies such as the National Poisons Information Service, the working party's recommendations for improving awareness amongst general practitioners and other measures which might improve aspects of the diagnosis and management of this group of patients.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts in Britain which offer specialist treatment to patients suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. [67008]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The organisation of health services, including services for people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis, and the manner in which they are delivered, are matters for National Health Service trusts and health authorities, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  Orthopaedic Consultants
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the ratio of orthopaedic consultants to(a) adults and (b) pensioners in each health authority. [67000]

  Mr. Denham
  Copies of a table showing the latest available information on the ratio of orthopaedic consultants to(a) adults and (b) pensioners in each health authority will be placed in the Library.

  Ongar War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision on the proposed closure of Ongar War Memorial Hospital. [67640]

  Mr. Denham
  A decision on the proposed closure of Ongar War Memorial Hospital will be announced shortly.

  Winter Pressures Money
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money was put into the NHS to help deal with the 1998–99 winter pressures; when this money was made available; and what it was spent on. [67375]

  Mr. Denham
  An extra £250 million (£209 million for England) was announced in November to help the National Health Service and social services manage this winter's pressures, £159 million of which was made available immediately in England. £50 million was held as a central contingency fund, £44 million of which has been allocated in January to relieve particular pressure points.

  The additional moneys have funded well over 2,000 projects to manage emergency admissions and maximise bed availability, including many joint NHS/social service schemes aimed at providing appropriate support for patients in the community.

  Aricept
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the clinical trials regarding the use of Aricept in treating patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease. [67993]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information regarding the use of Aricept in patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease from clinical trials has been considered by the Medicines Control Agency.

  The Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which advises health ministers, also considered available evidence from clinical trials and has reflected these in the clinical statement issued in April 1998.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances the drug Aricept is currently available by prescription for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. [67992]

  Mr. Denham
  Aricept (donepezil) is licensed in the United Kingdom for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, and can be prescribed by doctors on the National Health Service. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has recommended that this treatment should be initiated only following a specialist assessment.

  Practice Dispensing
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when arrangements were introduced through which general practitioners may earn additional income related to the volume and costs of drugs they dispense. [68448]

  Mr. Denham
  Payments to general practitioners in respect of practice dispensing have included arrangements to reflect the volume and cost of the drugs since the inception of the National Health Service.

  The level of fees and allowances payable to GPs are set by the independent pay review body to deliver and distribute their recommended level of net incomes for GPs, taking account of the costs, pressures and workload of practice in different areas. Earnings from practice dispensing are an integral part of the overall recommendations of the review body.
  523
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of GPs dispense drugs. [68443]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on October 1997 data, some 16 per cent. of general practitioners in England are dispensing doctors.

  Dental Services
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent on NHS general dental services in each health authority in each year since 1995–96; [67260]

  (2) if he will list, by health authority, the number of dentists with an NHS list and the average number of patients on each dentist's NHS list for (i) the most recent period for which data are available, (ii) March 1994 and (iii) March 1997; [67261]

  (3) if he will list by health authority or council area the number of (i) children and (ii) adults registered, and the number of patients registered per 100 residents for (a) the last date for which figures are available, (b) March 1995, (c) March 1996, (d) March 1997 and (e) March 1998. [67262]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: Copies of the information requested have been placed in the Library. Data are not directly comparable from year to year because of health authority boundary changes.

  Residential Care
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the report of the Centre for Policy on Ageing on National Required Standards for Residential Care and Nursing Homes; and if he will provide an estimate of the costs of compliance. [68222]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Centre for Policy on Ageing submitted their report on national standards for older people in residential care only very recently. We intend to publish the proposed standards for consultation shortly. Following consultation, we will consider the cost implications of introducing the standards prior to taking any decision about their implementation.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the unanswered questions about the appropriate use of beta-interferon referred to in his answer of 17 November,Official Report, columns 566–67, on which his Department is commissioning new research. [68429]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 211.

  A range of research questions are under consideration, broadly relating to the long-term clinical effectiveness of beta-interferon and its cost effectiveness relative to other treatments for multiple sclerosis.

  Nurses' Uniforms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the charging of nurses for their uniforms by colleges. [68465]
  524
  Mr. Denham
  Uniforms are provided free of charge to nursing students. They are provided either by the local National Health Service trust or by the higher education institution; in the latter case, the costs are met through NHS contracts. A case came to our attention last week where a university was seeking to charge for nurses' uniforms, in a way not sanctioned by their contract. As soon as we heard about the proposal we asked officials to investigate and the university concerned has now withdrawn its proposal. NHS education commissioners have been reminded of the policy in this area.

  Pay Review Body Recommendations
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the Health Pay Review bodies. [68859]

  Mr. Dobson
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the reports of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) and the Review Body on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB), which have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairmen and members of these Review Bodies for their hard work.

  Nurses are to get their biggest real terms increase for 10 years, and for the first time in 5 years the award is being paid nationally in full with no staging. The NPRB have recommended an across the board increase of 4.7 per cent. for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Around 70,000 D grade staff nurses will receive 8.2 per cent.-8.4 per cent., worth an extra £1,100–£1,200 a year. In addition, minimum starting pay for newly qualified nurses will rise to £14,400, an increase of 12 per cent. In inner London starting pay for a newly qualified nurse will be at least £17,325 including London Allowance. The guaranteed London Allowance affecting 50,000 nurses will increase by 15.4 per cent. On top of these pay increases, almost half of all nurses will receive pay increments worth at least a further 3.4 per cent. With these increases, more than two thirds of qualified nurses will earn £20,000 or more per year.

  The NPRB have also recommended an across the board increase of 4.7 per cent. for physiotherapists, radiographers and other professions allied to medicine (PAMs). Starting pay for basic grade PAMs with a degree after four years' training will increase on 1 April from £14,180 to £15,405, a rise of 8.6 per cent., with similar rises for other basic grade PAMs. The maximum of scale for highly skilled Senior 1 grade PAMs will increase from £21,485 to £23,130 from 1 April, a rise of 7.7 per cent.

  The Government have decided to accept all the NPRB pay recommendations for 1999–2000, with no staging. The headline settlement of 4.7 per cent. for nurses and other NPRB staff groups is significantly higher than for any of the other Review Body groups announced today, and more than we would expect for pay settlements in the public sector generally or elsewhere in the National Health Service. However, this is justified by the exceptional problems of nurse recruitment and retention which result from the failure of the last Government to put in place an adequate training and pay system for the

  525
  profession. We are pleased that the NPRB have recommended an exceptional increase for an exceptional problem.

  The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body (DDRB) has recommended a general pay increase of 3.5 per cent. for salaried doctors and dentists and for the pay element of fees for general medical practitioners. General practitioners will also receive the £60 million additional income recommended by DDRB last year for payment from 1999–2000. General dental practitioners' fees will also increase by 3.5 per cent. once the 0.9 per cent. addition to the feescale, awarded in 1998–99 only, has been removed. The DDRB has also recommended an additional £500 per year on the consultant scale maximum. The Government have accepted these recommendations for the coming year in full, with no staging.

  The DDRB also recommended an extra £50 million a year from 2000–2001 to reward individual consultants for increases in workload and intensity of work. Our negotiations with the profession on a new consultant contract are covering these issues. We will consider this recommendation very carefully in the context of the negotiations, and are willing to make an investment in rewards and incentives if the negotiations deliver a better service for patients. We will, therefore, decide on the level of any extra funding for future years, and how such funding might be allocated, when the negotiations are complete.

  Health authorities and NHS trusts can now use these opportunities to support a modern approach to recruiting, retaining and motivating key staff. I can announce today we are backing this with an allocation from the Modernisation Fund of £100m already earmarked for staff, which will go to all health authorities in England. This is in addition to the 6.5 per cent. increase in allocations to health authorities; and it will not affect the sums already announced within the Modernisation Fund for waiting lists, capital, mental health, primary care and information technology which already come to almost £1 billion for the coming year. The pay increases are therefore affordable both nationally and locally.

  This extra funding will help us get the nurses and other staff in place to take forward effectively the Government's programme for modernising the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be releasing an additional £20m to Health Boards from his Modernisation Programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making £6m available as a contribution to modernising the service including recruitment and retention initiatives.

  Health authority

  1996–97 final cash limit £000

  Population 000s

  1996–97 funding per capita £

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Health Authority

  560,714

  1,008

  556

  Coventry Health Authority

  156,033

  300

  520

  Dudley Health Authority

  139,518

  314

  444

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  80,943

  166

  488

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  242,022

  476

  508

  Sandwell Health Authority

  167,687

  293

  572

  Shropshire Health Authority

  189,099

  424

  446

  Solihull Health Authority

  107,132

  201

  533

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  269,486

  587

  459

  526
  In its evidence to the Nursing Pay Review Body, the Department drew attention to recruitment and retention concerns and asked for changes to address this by starting to modernise the nursing pay scales. The Review Body has responded by improving starting pay for nurses, as well as continuing the discretionary points for staff at the top of pay scales.

  We are supporting local recruitment plans with a high-profile, recruitment campaign for nurses which starts tonight on television. The aim is to attract more people into nursing and encourage qualified nurses and midwives to come back to work in the NHS. The focus of the campaign is on the value and rewards of a career in nursing and is intended to help recruit the extra nurses and midwives the NHS needs. The TV campaign will run for a month, backed by activity through to March in the national and regional press, in magazines and on radio.

  These settlements are fair and are being paid in full. They provide a platform for us to move forward on pay modernisation. We will publish detailed proposals for modernising the NHS pay system shortly. The kind of pay system needed in a modern NHS will:
  enable staff to give their best for patients, working in new ways and breaking down traditional barriers
  get away from the rigid and outdated grading structures which restrict career progression for experienced staff
  pay fairly and equitably for work done, with career progression based on responsibility, competence and satisfactory performance
  simplify and modernise conditions of service, with national core conditions and appropriate local flexibility.

  These changes are crucial to the modernisation of the NHS. They respond directly to concerns expressed by the Review Bodies, and are the only realistic way to satisfy nurses' aspirations for fewer pay ceilings and better reward for the job done. They provide the essential background for future investment in pay and staff development.

  Health Authority Funding (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority in(a) the West Midlands and (b) shire counties (i) the total funding allocation for health services and (ii) the funding per capita for (1) 1996–97 and (2) 1997–98. [68332]

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

  For the per capita figures crude populations have been used. No account has been taken of the differences in age or other factors which influence the allocations which have been made.
  527

  Health authority

  1996–97 final cash limit £000

  Population 000s

  1996–97 funding per capita £

  Walsall Health Authority

  126,240

  264

  478

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  278,731

  499

  559

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  122,502

  244

  502

  Worcester Health Authority

  254,061

  542

  469

  Other

  Avon Health Authority

  481,077

  982

  490

  Bedfordshire Health Authority

  238,995

  550

  435

  Berkshire Health Authority

  344,651

  779

  442

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  299,560

  674

  444

  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority

  193,472

  459

  422

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Health Authority

  244,556

  489

  500

  County Durham Health Authority

  322,967

  609

  530

  Dorset Health Authority

  348,685

  683

  511

  East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority

  240,453

  490

  491

  East Lancashire Health Authority

  270,795

  513

  528

  East Kent Health Authority

  314,507

  590

  533

  East Norfolk Health Authority

  309,456

  621

  498

  East Riding Health Authority

  288,988

  577

  497

  East Surrey Health Authority

  231,620

  410

  565

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  398,045

  728

  547

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  261,482

  554

  472

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  78,676

  125

  629

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  427,267

  927

  461

  Lincolnshire Health Authority

  309,385

  616

  502

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority

  166,678

  311

  536

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  262,151

  468

  560

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  244,502

  473

  517

  North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority

  242,913

  546

  445

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  158,330

  310

  511

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  156,289

  319

  490

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  189,999

  377

  504

  North Essex Health Authority

  399,569

  875

  457

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  182,067

  392

  464

  North West Anglia Health Authority

  190,711

  411

  464

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  350,923

  737

  476

  Northamptonshire Health Authority

  273,675

  608

  450

  Northumberland Health Authority

  164,590

  311

  529

  Oxfordshire Health Authority

  263,933

  603

  438

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  242,890

  533

  456

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  148,081

  312

  475

  Somerset Health Authority

  228,424

  485

  471

  South Cheshire Health Authority

  324,095

  672

  482

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  300,913

  592

  508

  South Derbyshire Health Authority

  279,009

  554

  504

  South Essex Health Authority

  320,552

  701

  457

  South Humber Health Authority

  157,602

  317

  497

  Southhampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  256,688

  533

  482

  Suffolk Health Authority

  299,969

  663

  452

  Tees Health Authority

  278,354

  558

  499

  West Hertfordshire Health Authority

  268,209

  518

  518

  West Kent Health Authority

  457,217

  964

  474

  Health authority

  1997–98 final cash limit £000

  Population 000s

  1997–98 funding per capita £

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Health Authority

  583,936

  1,016

  575

  Coventry Health Authority

  170,088

  301

  565

  Dudley Health Authority

  149,339

  314

  476

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  88,607

  166

  534

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  262,359

  475

  552

  Sandwell Health Authority

  180,831

  293

  617

  Shropshire Health Authority

  202,587

  427

  474

  Solihull Health Authority

  111,409

  203

  549

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  283,562

  588

  482

  Walsall Health Authority

  136,755

  263

  520

  528 529

  Health authority

  1997–98 final cash limit £000

  Population 000s

  1997–98 funding per capita £

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  286,325

  502

  570

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  131,887

  243

  543

  Worcester Health Authority

  268,004

  537

  499

  Other

  Avon Health Authority

  514,405

  989

  520

  Bedfordshire Health Authority

  251,206

  552

  455

  Berkshire Health Authority

  373,403

  794

  470

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  316,000

  681

  464

  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority

  202,555

  456

  444

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly Health Authority

  256,486

  490

  523

  County Durham Health Authority

  335,707

  609

  551

  Dorset Health Authority

  376,612

  690

  546

  East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority

  256,160

  495

  517

  East Lancashire Health Authority

  292,617

  512

  572

  East Kent Health Authority

  331,487

  595

  557

  East Norfolk Health Authority

  324,385

  624

  520

  East Riding Health Authority

  302,002

  582

  519

  East Surrey Health Authority

  245,548

  412

  596

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  429,400

  735

  584

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  276,951

  560

  495

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  81,035

  126

  643

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  454,262

  934

  486

  Lincolnshire Health Authority

  328,866

  622

  529

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority

  181,637

  311

  584

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  270,973

  470

  577

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  258,273

  476

  543

  North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority

  255,126

  549

  465

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  167,563

  312

  537

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  167,232

  319

  524

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  198,239

  376

  527

  North Essex Health Authority

  424,367

  885

  480

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  195,658

  389

  503

  North West Anglia Health Authority

  203,836

  413

  494

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  372,067

  741

  502

  Northamptonshire Health Authority

  291,851

  610

  478

  Northumberland Health Authority

  174,657

  310

  563

  Oxfordshire Health Authority

  280,849

  609

  461

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  259,543

  538

  482

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  158,068

  311

  508

  Somerset Health Authority

  242,363

  488

  497

  South Cheshire Health Authority

  339,310

  674

  503

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  318,677

  594

  536

  South Derbyshire Health Authority

  294,228

  559

  526

  South Essex Health Authority

  348,101

  704

  494

  South Humber Health Authority

  172,232

  313

  550

  Southhampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  282,569

  541

  522

  Suffolk Health Authority

  317,614

  667

  476

  Tees Health Authority

  301,712

  534

  565

  West Hertfordshire Health Authority

  284,245

  525

  541

  West Kent Health Authority

  477,088

  967

  493

  Notes:

  1. Final cash limit is the sum of the initial cash limit plus all in year adjustments. Cash limit adjustments in respect of the temporary loan of cash limits to other authorities have been excluded.

  2. Health authorities are not co-terminous with local authorities. The list of health authorities under "other" is intended to broadly equate to shire counties. It excludes health authorities whose areas mainly relate to metropolitan councils and London boroughs.

  3. The 1996–97 population figures used are mid-year population projections based on 1993 estimates. The 1997–98 population figures used are mid-year population projections based on 1995 estimates.

  Stereotactic Radiosurgery
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities fund the use of stereotactic radiosurgery; and what constraints are imposed by him in respect of the funding of clinical procedures capable of being classified as in the realms of research. [67709]

  Mr. Hutton
  Stereotactic radiosurgery is available in eight of some fifty radiotherapy centres in the United Kingdom. The technique is well established for certain 530
  well-defined conditions which would be expected to occur in patients spread fairly evenly across all health authorities. Health authorities make resource allocation decisions according to local priorities.

  We encourage National Health Service bodies to undertake experimental treatments only within an evaluative framework. Any decisions to fund experimental treatments as research will be influenced by their importance to the health service and assessments on the value of the research.

WALES

  GPs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners were registered in Wales in May 1997; and how many are currently registered in Wales. [68456]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Data on numbers of general medical practitioners were collected on a six monthly basis (as at 1 April and 1 October) until 1 October 1997 after which only annual data (at 1 October) are being collected.

  At 1 April 1997 there were 1,840 general medical practitioners in Wales, of which 1,740 were unrestricted principals. By 1 October 1997 the figures had risen to 1,874 and 1,753 respectively.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in respect of possible private prosecutions being taken out against General Pinochet; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement. [67970]

  The Attorney-General
  On 26 October 1998, I received an application from Winstanley-Burgess, Solicitors, acting for a number of individuals who complained of acts of torture in Chile in the period 1973–1990. The application was of Law Officer consent to prosecute Augusto Pinochet for offices of torture contrary to section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988. By letter dated 28 October 1998, Winstanley-Burgess were advised that I had considered their application and had declined to grant consent on the basis that the application revealed insufficient admissible evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction.

  On 26 October 1998, I received an application from Bindman & Partners, Solicitors, acting for a number of individuals who alleged that they had suffered criminal offences in Chile at a time when Augusto Pinochet was in power. The application was for Law Officer consent to prosecute Augusto Pinochet for offences of torture, contrary to section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988, and for hostage taking, contrary to the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. By letter dated 28 October 1998 Bindman & Partners were advised that I had considered their application and had declined to grant consent on the basis that the application revealed insufficient admissible evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction.

  Bindman & Partners have on a number of occasions renewed their application for Law Officer consent to prosecute Augusto Pinochet with further material. To date, their applications have been declined on the same basis as before. Their latest application is under consideration.
  532
  Individuals have communicated with me and my office concerning a prosecution of Augusto Pinochet in this jurisdiction. Replies have been limited to factual explanations of the decision making process and the state of any application for Law Officer consent to a prosecution.

  Councillor Frank MacGrath
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to the public purse of the conduct and arrangement of proceedings in the case of Councillor Frank MacGrath of Preston. [66332]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: Councillor Frank MacGrath was the subject of three separate sets of criminal proceedings which arose out of an investigation by the Lancashire Constabulary known as Operation Angel involving allegations of fraud and corruption. Expenditure identified by the CPS as attributable to this series of cases comprises Counsel's fees £250,134 and payments in relation to witness expenses of £2,496. However, the complexity and inter-relationship of these cases make it impossible to attribute specific expenditure to Councillor MacGrath. The CPS staff working on the case did so as part of their ordinary department duties and their salary and associated cost cannot be separately apportioned.

  I understand from the Lord Chancellor's Department that information about the passage of the case through the magistrates court is held only in manual records and therefore is not readily available. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I am further informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department that, according to information readily available, Frank MacGrath was granted legal aid in the Crown Court and the total amount paid to defence lawyers was £120,936.46. In addition, there were payments amounting to £47,153.88 from Central funds. Just over 71 hours were spent in Crown Court hearings and this cost an estimated £21,200.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Aspartame
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research his Department has commissioned into the possible(a) health dangers and (b) side-effects of Aspartame; [66678]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the health risks posed by Aspartame. [66677]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has not commissioned any research in this area. However, the Department regularly reviews new information on food chemical safety and, when appropriate, seeks advice from its expert advisory committees. In 1992 the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) completed a thorough review of the toxicity of aspartame and reaffirmed its earlier advice that aspartame was safe to use. The COT also considered reports linking aspartame with a variety of adverse effects such as headache, seizures and behavioural difficulties in children. There was insufficient evidence to support such claims. Aspartame has also been given safety clearance
  533
  by the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food. A study published in 1996 which suggested a link between aspartame and brain cancer was rejected by the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the expected cost of(a) setting up and (b) annually operating the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [67713]

  Mr. Rooker
  Setting up the FSA is expected to involve additional one-off costs of around £12 million per annum over three years and additional ongoing costs of about £29 million per annum, taking account of the collection costs associated with the proposed levy. In addition, current food safety and standards functions, and their associated expenditure, will transfer to the Food Standards Agency from MAFF, DH, and the devolved administrations.

  Slaughterhouse Closures
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouse premises have closed in the last 12 months; and what effect this has had on reducing journey times of livestock to slaughter within the UK. [67872]

  Mr. Rooker
  During 1998, 28 slaughterhouse licences (red meat and poultry meat) were revoked because they had ceased operating. The effect on journey times will vary according to the location of the farm of origin and the nearest slaughterhouse. Whilst we would prefer animals to be slaughtered close to the farm, this may not occur for a variety of reasons. Legislation lays down clear rules to protect the welfare of animals during transport, and there is no reason why animals should not be transported safely and humanely.

  Enrofloxacin
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received in support of a ban on the use of enrofloxacin in animals. [67741]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. However, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, in its report of 17 March 1998 "Resistance to Antibiotics and other Antimicrobial Agents", recommended extreme economy of use of fluoroquinolones in veterinary practice (recommendation 11.21). The report also recommended the development of a Code of Practice on when such compounds should be prescribed. The Government accept this recommendation and their response to the report is available in the Library of the House.

  Genetically Engineered Crops
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the(a) nutritional need for and (b) alternatives to the production of genetically engineered crops in the United Kingdom. [67660]
  534
  Mr. Rooker
  Genetically modified crops will not be grown until they have passed all the relevant statutory procedures. Once they have done so, it will be for the market to determine whether they provide nutritional or other benefits over alternative varieties.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the capability of the length of time for which(a) agricultural, (b) agroforestry and (c) horticultural research projects are funded by his Department with the biological systems which they are designed to assess; and if he will assess the benefits of more long term research funding in respect of the longer rotations in organic systems. [67661]

  Mr. Rooker
  Research is funded for an appropriate length of time bearing in mind the particular biological and agricultural systems being investigated. However, in many cases it is not appropriate to let an individual contract which covers the whole period of the research. Instead, the research is funded by a number of consecutive contracts. This assists the management of the research and allows changes of priorities and redirection during the course of the work. This holds for all of the Ministry's agricultural research including that on organic systems.

  Sustainable Agriculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those(a) persons and (b) organisations who submitted responses to his Department's consultation on indicators for sustainable agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [67662]

  Mr. Rooker
  A list of the individuals and organisations who responded to my Department' s consultation on a set of indicators for sustainable agriculture follows. Copies of the responses are available in the MAAF Main Library. These indicators are intended to complement the wider set of indicators on sustainable development for the UK which is being developed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The aim is to publish the agriculture indicators as a pilot set later this year, and to develop them further over the next three to five years.

  Respondents to the MAFF consultation on the development of a set of indicators for sustainable agriculture (June-September 1998) Individuals

  Ms Margareta Jose-Baars

  Mr. Marcus Braun

  Mr. Peter F. Hepworth

  Mr. O. H. A. Dowding

  Institution/Organisation

  ACTIN

  ADAS Consulting Ltd.

  Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

  British Agrochemicals Association Limited

  British Government Panel on Sustainable Development

  British Pest Control Association

  British Society of Soil Science

  Butterfly Conservation

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

  535

  Cheshire County Council

  Consumers in Europe

  Consumers' Association

  Council for British Archaeology

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Country Landowners' Association

  Countryside Commission

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Cranfield University, Soil Survey and Land Research Centre

  Crofters Commission

  Dartmoor National Park Authority

  Elm Farm Research Centre

  English Heritage

  English Nature

  Environment Agency

  Farmers' Union of Wales

  Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

  Fertiliser Manufacturers Association Ltd.

  Friends of the Earth

  Game Conservation Trust

  Green Adventure

  Historic Farm Buildings Group

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  Institute of Professional Soil Scientists

  Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology

  Isle of Man Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests

  Local Government Association

  National Consumer Council

  National Farmers' Union

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Trust

  Natural Environment Research Council

  North York Moors National Park Authority (on behalf of the Association of National Park Authorities)

  Northern Ireland Environmental Link

  Pesticides Trust

  Plantlife

  Royal Agricultural Society of England

  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Royal Town Planning Institute

  Royal Welsh Agricultural Society Ltd.

  Rural Development Commission

  Rural, Agriculture and Allied Workers, TGWU

  SAFE Alliance

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

  Scottish Landowners' Federation

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Soil Association

  Suffolk ACRE

  Tenant Farmers' Association

  Thames Water

  UKASTA Ltd.

  Ulster Wildlife Trust

  536

  University of Hertfordshire

  Watling Chase Community Forest (on behalf of Community Forests)

  Welsh Local Government Association

  Women's Farming Union

  Yorkshire Water.

  Orchards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase the acreage of orchards in England. [68050]

  Mr. Rooker
  Decisions on the area to be cultivated are taken by growers in response to the needs of the market.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date the UK will be in full compliance with EU rules on meat inspection. [68128]

  Mr. Rooker
  Full compliance with EU rules on veterinary supervision in licensed meat plants in Great Britain is not possible in the short term, essentially because of a shortage of veterinarians willing to undertake meat hygiene work in the UK. It is not known how long it will take to achieve full compliance, as this will depend on the Meat Hygiene Service's ability to secure the services of additional Official Veterinary Surgeons, and on future changes in the size and structure of the meat industry. Therefore, it may be some years before the levels and frequency of veterinary supervision required by the EU meat hygiene Directives are achieved in all GB licensed meat plants.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs continue to operate under derogation for low throughput. [68130]

  Mr. Rooker
  At 1 January 1999, there were 210 permanently derogated (low throughput) slaughterhouses in England licensed to produce meat for sale for human consumption. Of these, 162 were red meat slaughterhouses and 48 were poultry slaughterhouses.

  Pork Imports
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce compulsory labelling for imported pork products which do not meet UK welfare, veterinary and feed standards. [68143]

  Mr. Rooker
  None; but I welcome the initiatives taken by many retailers to introduce voluntary labelling schemes giving consumers more information about rearing standards. My right hon. Friend the Minister has received assurances from the major supermarkets that all their own label fresh pork, bacon, ham, sausages and pork pies will come from stall and tether and meat and bone meal free production systems; also, they will not label as British processed products produced from imported fresh port.
  537
  I am sure the launch earlier this month by the Meat and Livestock Commission of the quality pigmark scheme will help consumers to identify pigmeat products in the shops which have been produced to British standards.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the annual tonnage of pork meat products entering the UK; and what estimate he has of the percentage of this imported meat which is produced from animals that would not meet UK(a) welfare, (b) veterinary and (c) feed regulation standards. [68142]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the five years 1994–98, the UK imported around 160,000 tonnes of pork on average every year from other EU member states (imports from third countries are minimal). All would have met EU welfare, veterinary and feed requirements. Since March 1996, the UK has not permitted mammalian meat and bone meal to be fed to farm animals, a ban which is not in place in all member states. Also, since 1 January 1999, the UK has had a ban on housing pigs in close confinement stall and tether systems; although it is impossible to say what proportion of imported pork has not met these production standards since their introduction, it is likely to be very small.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statutory provisions prevent the 538
  introduction of a ban on the import of pork products where the pork does not meet UK welfare, veterinary and feed regulation standards. [68161]

  Mr. Rooker
  Single Market Legislation and European Court of Justice Rulings protect the free circulation of goods in the EU. In areas where there is a common market, such as pigmeat, if products conform to EU requirements, individual member states cannot introduce a unilateral ban. In respect of third country trade, the World Trade Organisation Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures gives WTO members the right to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, provided that these are based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.

  Welsh and English Lamb
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist Welsh and English lamb producers in meeting the demand for bulk food supplies. [68596]

  Mr. Rooker
  If there is a demand for bulk supplies of lamb, then it is surely a matter for the industry to find a means of supplying that demand.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Morale
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the morale of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government attach importance to maintaining and enhancing the morale of public servants. In the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we believe that staff morale has benefited from the results of the comprehensive spending review, which will provide a 2 per cent. real terms increase in resources, allowing modernisation of the FCO's network of posts and IT systems. Morale should also be enhanced by other measures being taken to modernise the FCO, such as greater openness, improved personnel policies, more professionalism, and increased training.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive reply. I am grateful to hear her emphasise the word "openness". Is she aware that on 2nd June 1979 there was published in the Economist the valedictory dispatch of Sir Nicholas Henderson, our then Ambassador to Paris? In view of the fact that neither Britain nor the Foreign Office fell down as a result of that rather novel and unusual situation, does she agree that Ministers do not have the time, and sometimes do not have the inclination, to read the 212 valedictory dispatches from our embassies and legations that appear in the Foreign Office every three years? Will she therefore consider either having those dispatches or a selection of them printed or placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament so that the openness of the Foreign Office can be seen by all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that I read all the dispatches that come into my box. I read them not only because I am a dutiful Minister, but also because they are highly informative, usually well-written and occasionally very funny. But they are also, without exception, very free and frank in their opinions and advice to Ministers about a whole range of issues, including their host countries. To release those dispatches in the way the noble Earl suggests would almost certainly result in some of those free and frank opinions perhaps on occasions being a
1280
little harmful. I am bound to say that the overall effect would be for the dispatches to be much less free and frank and so defeat the purpose.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, would not the best way to enhance the morale of those who work for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office be for us to thank them for the tremendous job that nearly all diplomats do, most of them in decent privacy and quiet, and especially for the help that they give people like myself who travel to those lands and whom they look after, brief and help beyond the call of their duties?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. It is a pity that our newspapers and media try to focus on the negative. In fact, the Foreign Office receives many letters of thanks such as those just articulated by my noble friend from people who are helped abroad not only for the briefing given to eminent figures who are abroad but also for the completely unsung help, particularly from our consular divisions, given to people who find themselves in difficulties—people who may be in prison and so forth. I shall take great pleasure in conveying my noble friend's thanks to my colleagues.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the morale of the Foreign Office might be greatly enhanced if the Foreign Secretary did not engage in antics which generate such adverse publicity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary is an excellent Foreign Secretary. He is respected in the Foreign Office and we need no greater demonstration of how much he is respected by others than that he was the Foreign Secretary asked to be the emissary to Kosovo this weekend. We need say nothing more about the respect in which he is held.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say what progress has been made in addressing the systemic and cultural factors and the cumulative succession of failures of communication in the FCO which were identified by Sir Thomas Legg's important investigation last year?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact that the factors were suggested to be systemic and cultural suggests that they did not begin on 1st May 1997. As my right honourable friend pointed out on 27th July last year, we accepted every one of the recommendations in the Legg Report. They include a central unit for sanctions enforcement, new procedures for handling intelligence, guidance on contacts with private military companies, recruitment of professional managers in the administration and a greater exchange of staff with the private sector and NGOs. But the most important thing that has happened has been the CSR settlement and the prospect now of 200 new recruits in the Foreign Office who will be contributing to everything, including a new IT system which will help with communication.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in large areas of the Foreign and

1281
Commonwealth Office morale appears to have been damaged by our effective cession of much of our foreign policy to 28 working groups in Brussels in which, of course, we have only a minority voice?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord should come to the Foreign Office and experience, as I do, how good morale is in most parts of the office. It has been enhanced by greater openness; by the holding of two open days in the past year and recruitment fairs; by inviting school children to visit the Foreign Office; by the commitment of the permanent under-secretary to racial equality; by a mentoring programme; and by many other measures. I simply do not recognise the lack of morale in those parts of the Foreign Office to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the thanks which have been expressed to our diplomatic staff in posts overseas should be extended also to those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here in London who invariably answer queries from Members with great courtesy and alacrity? Will she also congratulate those concerned with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website which is an important development in greater openness and clarity of FCO policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to thank the noble Lord for pointing out that there is, of course, a strong diplomatic corps at home and to remind the House of the excellence of the Foreign Office website which, at the moment, receives 1 million visits each week. An enormous number of people look at that website. It is to the great credit of the Foreign Office that it is as well run as it is.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, while echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, concerning the excellence of the Foreign Office and our diplomats abroad, which many of us have experienced, can the Minister say why it is not possible to publicise many of the success stories that the Foreign Office has had over the years? That would be extremely beneficial to all concerned.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if the noble Viscount would like to put his points to the editors of our national newspapers and to those who edit the media, I am sure that we would all be interested in the response. There are some excellent success stories to tell of the Foreign Office, from foreign policy initiatives to those on openness and recruitment of young people from ethnic minorities. In the last DS9 competition, over 13 per cent. of those recruited were from ethnic minorities. That is an issue on which we have been pushing forward very hard in the past year. I am delighted that the noble Viscount has made such a point and, accordingly, I look forward to seeing his letter in The Times.

NATO Strategic Concept Update
2.46 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has so far been made in the drafting of a new strategic concept for NATO.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, work is still on course toward the adoption of an updated strategic concept for the alliance at the NATO summit in Washington in April. Discussions are based on a draft prepared by the NATO International Staff after a series of preliminary discussions among the 19 countries concerned. Her Majesty's Government continue to play a full part in the discussions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the NATO strategic concept document will refer to further enlargement of NATO, which would, of course, extend British security obligations further eastwards in Europe; that it will cover the European defence identity within NATO—one of the explicit commitments of the British Government; that it will thus affect the future of US/European relations and that it must also touch upon NATO commitment out of area, which implies British commitments in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Gulf? Given the central importance of such questions to defence policy, do Her Majesty's Government have any plans to consult the House on the document before it is finally agreed?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the discussions with respect to the updating of the strategic concept are being conducted in confidence. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on what will be in the final document, because it is still subject to negotiation. I should be surprised if none of the matters to which the noble Lord alludes is covered by the document. There are no plans at present to consult the House before the negotiations are completed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the new concept contains a provision that no NATO country will be the first to use nuclear weapons?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend always tries to seduce me down that path. I can do no better than repeat what I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It would be pointless for me to speculate at this stage on what will be in the strategic document.
Lord Carver: My Lords, in revising the strategic concept, will the Government do their best to encourage their fellow members of the alliance to ensure that, before there is any question of enlarging the alliance

1283
further, the stark, uncompromising commitment of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty will be reconsidered?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there are no plans of which I am aware to consider revising Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, or any other article of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House of the extent, if any, to which the European Commission has been involved in, or has been informed of, officially or unofficially, the content of the various drafts?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am unaware of any consultations up to now involving the European Commission in such matters. I should be very surprised if it were involved at any stage in the future.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the success of the Strategic Defence Review, conducted by Her Majesty's Government over the past 18 months, will my noble friend suggest to our Government's colleagues in NATO that that model of public consultation not only with experts in the military establishment, but ranging much wider than that, would be beneficial in the construction of the new strategic concept for NATO?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his complimentary remarks about the way in which the Government conducted the recent Strategic Defence Review. However, I have to say that this is a consultation with respect to the new strategic concept for NATO, which is being conducted among 16 countries. Shortly, with any luck, three new adherents will be taking part in the final stages of the discussions. It would be inappropriate for us—indeed, quite futile—to try to impose on them at this late stage of the negotiations any method of proceeding other than the one in which we are currently engaged.

Police: Discipline and Retirement
2.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the law to enable police disciplinary proceedings to be initiated or continued following the retirement of a police officer.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government have no plans at present. We will consider this issue in the light of Sir William Macpherson's report on his inquiry into matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, apart from the police and probation officers, can my noble
1284
friend say whether there are any other professions or occupations where members can escape disciplinary proceedings simply by retiring? Indeed, what justification can there be for such a situation? Further, will my noble friend take this opportunity to deprecate attempts which have been made by police sources to denigrate the Macpherson inquiry in advance of the publication of its findings?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know of any other profession where a similar immunity, as it were, would arise following retirement. Certainly, if one has left regular practice at the Bar, one still remains liable to complaints from disenchanted members of the public. If there has been any concerted effort to interfere with, or pollute, the prospective findings of the report of Sir William Macpherson, I certainly deprecate them. I have known him for some years and he is a very considerable public servant carrying out a very difficult public duty. It would be best for all of us to wait and see what he has to say and then ponder it with very great care.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is one other profession—if that is the right word for it—where one can escape the consequences of malfeasance, short of criminal actions, by retirement? It is the House of Commons.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is so, my Lords, but they do not escape unscathed, because many of them end up here.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, including me! However, does the Minister agree that a difficult transition has been taking place over the past few years from the old attitude of chief constables who automatically defended any policeman who was criticised to the present much better attitude of chief constables who openly investigate and root out those who fall short of the very high standards required? Surely this is essential for the maintenance of the justifiably high reputation of our police force in the world.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that there has been a cultural change. I listened this morning to the broadcast on the radio of the interview with Deputy Assistant Commissioner Grieve. I do not think that anyone could suggest that he is not entirely alert and alive to such matters. However, it is true that there has been serious concern about the number of officers retiring on medical grounds. Fortunately the percentage fell from 50 per cent. of all retirements in 1994–95 to 36 per cent. for the year 1997–98. Indeed, we are looking to meet the target of not more than 33 per cent. by the year 1999–2000.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the investigation of murder is not an exact science? Indeed, I cannot think of one such inquiry in a decade in the CID which I can look back on and say that I would probably have carried

1285
it out in exactly the same way. Therefore, does my noble friend accept that any McCarthy-type witch-hunt of individual officers long after the event could risk injustice being heaped upon injustice? Does he further agree that to make sweeping generalisations about racism in the police service is to indulge in the very hallmark of stereotyping—the sign of racists themselves—which, in my belief, does grave injustice to all those hard-working, competent and honest police officers patrolling the streets day and night on our behalf?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in my experience, the investigation of murders varies quite substantially. Some murders are extremely easy to investigate and solve—much easier than other types of crime. Some, as my noble friend indicated, are extremely difficult. When one gets a racist overtone, they may become even more difficult. I do not think that one wants McCarthyism, I do not think one wants assertion and I do not believe that one needs to pretend, or persuade oneself, that racism is not a serious problem in many different sections of our country. As I said, it would be best for us not to ponder on McCarthy but to wait for Macpherson. The inquiry which is being carried out is a most difficult one. There will be very significant long-term lessons for us all to heed and to try to learn from.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence clearly demonstrated the inadequacy of the police disciplinary procedure and, more importantly, the inadequacy of the system on the basis that even the people who committed the murder have escaped justice? Will the noble Lord take into account the recommendation made by the Police Complaints Authority to the Home Affairs Committee that one way of dealing with this particular aspect would be to ensure that police officers, even if they retire on medical or other grounds, will still be subject to the disciplinary procedure up a period of four years after retirement? Alternatively, will the noble Lord take into account the view that no officer should be allowed to retire on health or other grounds if he or she is subject to a public complaint which is being investigated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the report of the Home Affairs Committee is an admirable document; indeed, I believe that it was the first one under the chairmanship of Chris Mullin, who has laboured in this field for a very long time. The Home Secretary accepted those recommendations, some of which will require primary legislation. However, one needs to bear in mind the fact that in cases where a police officer is suspended by his chief constable during a disciplinary investigation, retirement cannot automatically take place.
Lord Knights: My Lords, should it eventually be considered appropriate for accelerated disciplinary proceedings to be started before or continued after
1286
retirement, can the Minister say what penalties would be thought appropriate to impose should guilt be established?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, plainly a certain range of penalties, which are available when an officer is serving, would no longer be available—for example, a reduction in rank or other such measures. It seems to me that we should wait to see what the report of Sir William Macpherson says, consider carefully the lessons to be learned, tie them in with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee and then take the matter forward. We must be fair to the overwhelming majority of police officers who are fair, honourable and decent. However, we also have to maintain public confidence, which has been very severely eroded following the racist murder of an innocent young man.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the Minister think that the criminal standard of proof is appropriate in disciplinary proceedings when it is necessary to maintain the confidence of the public in the force, as he has outlined?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. I am happy to reiterate what Jack Straw said. He believes that that is a significant disadvantage in the context of disciplinary inquiries.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the situation with which the Greater Manchester Police Authority is now faced following the prosecution of one of its officers who was initially found guilty? The latter was successful on appeal and that has landed the police authority with a bill of £10 million, which it has to pay out of its own resources. Does my noble friend realise the enormous cuts that will have to take place in Greater Manchester in order to fund that settlement?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if a police authority is sued in the civil courts and if it is found liable—or, as I understand has occurred in this case, wants to compromise the case—it seems to me only right and proper that the damages and the costs should be borne by the authority which has been found to be in default of its duties and obligations.

Times Newspapers: Pricing Policy Inquiry
2.59 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive from the Office of Fair Trading the results of the inquiry into the pricing policy of Times Newspapers.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the decision to undertake an inquiry into the pricing policy of The Times newspaper was taken independently by the

1287
Director General of Fair Trading. It is a matter for him how and when he makes his findings public. I understand that he is aiming to complete his investigation by the end of February.
Lord McNally: My Lords, that means it will have taken the OFT a year to conduct an inquiry that it said originally did not need to take place. Is the Minister concerned that we are at a dangerous time when one piece of competition law is being phased out, with a rather lethargic regulator in charge, and a new piece of competition law is not to be implemented until March 2000? The Mirror Group is in play and we are assured by Andrew Neil that the Telegraph is still Mr. Murdoch's prime target. Is not the Minister worried that, without proper protection, the quality and diversity of our press are still under threat?
Lord Simon of Highbury: No, my Lords. I think we have a vigorous law and a vigorous Director General of Fair Trading.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree it is regrettable that the inquiry has taken a year? If a case of predatory pricing is established, those who have suffered as a result of that will have done so now for over a year, and if no such case is established, those who have been attacked for engaging in predatory pricing will have suffered those attacks for a year. This delay has been bad for the industry.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as regards matters as complex as the one we are discussing, we all wish to ensure that investigations are sound and thorough. As noble Lords will be aware, there have been three or four similar investigations in the past, none of which has revealed sufficient evidence of any kind to bring a case. This series of investigations must be carried out thoroughly and well. I am sure the director general is doing that.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the investigative powers of the Office of Fair Trading at the present time are inadequate, particularly as regards demanding information and accounts of all kinds? Does he further agree that when piloting the Competition Act through this House last year he sought to establish adequate provisions in the new law which would much enhance the existing position? Does my noble friend also agree that it would be desirable to implement at the earliest opportunity the investigative powers contained in the Competition Act of last year, even though full implementation may have to await the date which my noble friend has given in the past; namely, 1st March 2000?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting contribution. It is true that the new Act introduces far more stringent powers of investigation. The Chamber thoroughly debated the matter. We set the date of 1st March 2000 for implementation of the Act largely to allow industry appropriate time for preparation. I believe that that date,
1288
which was chosen after much discussion in this House, is appropriate. As regards the investigation we are discussing, I say only that the length of the proceedings has been due in part to a request for further investigation and information which was made during the autumn, which was freely given by News International. That process will reach a swift conclusion in February.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when he persuaded this House not to insist on the insertion of the predatory pricing clause in the Competition Act, he did so on the basis that the Office of Fair Trading would have the appropriate powers under the new Act to deal with the situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? Does he accept that as those powers do not come into effect until the year 2000 this issue will not go away?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his implied flattery as regards my powers of persuasion. However, the House decided with its own good sense that that was the appropriate way to take the Act forward. I believe we all agreed that this was a sensible interim period to enable the industry to prepare for the new regulations. As I say, I have no evidence that there is any shortage of capacity under the current legal system for the Director General of Fair Trading appropriately to carry out this investigation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's answers to previous questions, would it be helpful if the Director General of Fair Trading had greater resources to enable him to deal with these matters rather more speedily?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, if I may say so, that is an appropriate suggestion. I believe that in the latest budgetary process an extra £15 million has been dedicated to extending the capacity of the Office of Fair Trading over the next three-year budgetary period.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister confirm reports of an interview with Mr. Stephen Byers on the radio last night in which he said that although the Government wanted to see the removal of any political judgment with regard to most takeovers and mergers, the newspaper industry was a special case and that Ministers would wish to reserve powers to his department in cases of mergers and takeovers in the newspaper industry?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I must confess that yesterday evening I was close to Highbury for a particular event. I upheld the name which I am fortunate enough to bear while making a lot of noise about it. Therefore I have not caught up with the Secretary of State's latest statements. However, it was a perfectly satisfactory home win!

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Kosovo.

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONAL ON COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTORS
(" .—(1) This Act (apart from this section) shall not come into force until the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that the Department of Social Security guidelines on compensation are revised to ensure that no loss is suffered by any individual claimant, who has made contributions, as a consequence of the breakdown of the Contributions Agency computer.
(3) The second condition is that all such compensation due has been paid.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment results from a series of debates we had during the debate on the social security uprating orders and at Committee and Report stages of the Bill. On the latter occasion we discussed a series of concerns expressed on all sides of the House as regards the situation which has arisen as a result of problems in connection with the computer system which monitors social security contributions. A number of people have not received payments to which they are entitled on the dates those payments were due.
At Report stage the question arose of compensation. I pressed the Minister to clarify the position. It became apparent that the Government were proposing to compensate various people in the category I have just described and that various provisions had been made. However, it also emerged as a result of the debate that the compensation would be paid only on the basis of the existing departmental rules. In reply, the Minister said that,
"there is no intention at the moment of which I am aware to depart from them".—[Official Report, 25/1/99; col. 810.]
That gave rise to considerable cause for concern in that people entitled to a large amount of the money which had not been paid would receive compensation under the rules, but poorer people who were entitled to smaller amounts would apparently receive no compensation whatever. The amendment is intended to enable the rules to be amended to deal with the problem. That being so, I could spell out in considerable detail the arguments in favour of the amendment. However, I have heard a rumour that conceivably the Government are persuaded by the arguments that I advanced previously.
1290
It is best perhaps if I do not prolong my remarks. I wish to hear whether the Minister has something helpful to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, as the noble Lord has invited me to speak to the issue now, that may be helpful rather than going through a long discussion and putting the government view at the end.
At Report stage we discussed compensation for those suffering delay through the problems with the NIRS2 system. Last week in another place the Public Accounts Committee also pressed the issue of compensation. I am now in a position to say how we intend to deal with this problem—a problem not of our making but one we inherited.
We fully accept that, whoever's fault the problem is, it was not caused by widows and pensioners. So we accept that they should suffer no loss. As I said on Report, we shall be paying arrears and, in that sense, there will be no loss. But we intend to go further. We intend to relax the current departmental guidelines which require a lengthy period of delay in payment and provide no compensation where the amount due is less than £10. Because of the one-off nature of the NIRS2 problem we propose a one-off solution. In any payment system there are inevitable delays, such as where details need checking or where an address has changed. But where people have suffered unreasonable delay they will receive a minimum £10 payment on top of the arrears. Those due larger amounts within the normal departmental guidelines will of course receive them. The compensation will be paid automatically where cases are reviewed. That will necessarily take time.
There are three reasons why I believe the House should reject the amendment proposed by the noble Lord in favour of the proposals I have just put forward. I am advised that the noble Lord's amendment is defective in two respects. First, the provision that his new clause makes for the commencement of the Bill is flatly inconsistent with the existing commencement provision in Clause 28, which your Lordships have already approved. Yet the noble Lord's amendment contains nothing to provide for the way in which the new clause is intended to work alongside Clause 28, or vice versa.
Secondly, the new clause is drafted in terms which are so vague that we doubt whether a court would be able to give effect to them in a way which would meet the noble Lord's objectives as he described them today. For instance, the whole provision is set in the context of an unspecific reference to "the contributions Agency computer", and it speaks in terms of a "breakdown". As I explained on Report, our present difficulties arise out of delayed introduction of a new system rather than any "breakdown". It is, moreover, unclear how the noble Lord's reference to a "loss" would be construed when there is no doubt that every customer will receive every penny of benefit to which they are entitled.
To put these deficiencies right we should need to amend the Bill in another place, so delaying the transfer. I am not trying to make a partisan point; often in

1291
opposition one moves a technically deficient amendment as one does not have the drafting skills that are available to government. That is merely by way of explanation.
The noble Lord's amendment is unworkable. It means that the transfer could not happen until the last pensioner—in hospital, for example, for a hip replacement operation, or perhaps spending a month or so on the Costa del Sol or travelling around the world (that is, even if they were well off)—had been paid. In those cases it could take months to make the payment, hinging on one last pensioner who had not yet been tracked down. In the meantime employers would face uncertainty that they neither want nor need. The amendment also means that every individual compensation payment to some 300,000 people would need to be separately calculated—at huge administrative cost.
The substantive reason—the reason why I hope the House and the noble Lord will respond positively to the Government's proposals—is that the proposals are more generous than those put forward by the noble Lord as well as being more certain.
It may be helpful if I illustrate this by way of a couple of examples. Let us take the example of a pensioner underpaid by £2.50 a week and a worst case scenario that it takes some 18 months to review the case. Under present departmental rules he or she would not receive any compensation. If we offered the 0.5 per cent. we are offering pension funds, as implied by the noble Lord's amendment, he or she would receive £8.45 after a complicated manual calculation. Our proposals would offer £10 after a very simple calculation. Another example would be that of a widow underpaid for nine months. Under the current rules she would receive nothing. Under the noble Lord's amendment she would receive £2.25. Under our proposals she will receive £10.
Our priority is now to catch up with as much of the outstanding work on NIRS2 as possible, particularly the remaining end-of-year returns from employers and contracted-out pension rebates, and to roll out the remaining areas of the system. Then we can start reviewing the backlog of cases affected. We shall be looking over the coming months at the detailed operation of the compensation arrangements so that we can get money to individuals as quickly and effectively as possible.
The proposals I have announced today mean that the claim repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that under our proposals the better-off are compensated but the less well off, because they are below a floor of compensation, are not, does not hold. The compensation we have announced today is more effective, more workable and more generous than that proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore, I hope that, given the spirit of this offer, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment and that the House will support the Government's proposal.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise one point. What she said is
1292
most welcome. It is a considerable step forward. I am sorry to cavil on any aspect. However, this provision will be triggered only by "unreasonable delay". The noble Baroness gave no indication as to what "unreasonable delay" might be. Will she comment further?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the House will consent to my replying to that point. My reference was to delay caused by the NIRS2 computer; namely, delay in calculating the contributions record in the previous year. We were trying to avoid a situation whereby, because someone failed, for example, to give accurate information and the payments were therefore five or seven days late, that person would automatically qualify for the £10 payment.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she has announced an imaginative and eminently decent response which will be welcomed by disabled people, retirement pensioners and widows alike. Almost by custom, Ministers receive more brickbats than bouquets. Will she accept my congratulations as well as my thanks?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I served my apprenticeship in the House of Commons under the late Iain Macleod. As I said previously, his remark when an amendment was accepted in principle was, "You don't shoot Santa Claus." By that, he meant that one does not go on at enormous length afterwards.
Nonetheless, there are one or two points that ought to be made. I do not feel gravely concerned about the technical deficiencies of my amendment. As the Minister has pointed out throughout our debates, this is a highly technical Bill—so much so that there are still two government amendments to come at this Third Reading stage. I appreciate the points made by the Minister.
We have been anxious throughout to ensure that this matter received rather more coverage and attention than it had previously received. Up to now, it has been very difficult indeed to get at the facts, although I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has responded. If I may say so without embarrassing her, her response has been much more satisfactory than was the response of the Secretary of State on the uprating Bill in the other place.
This matter presented a problem. I am still not clear on two points. Perhaps the Minister will say how many people will benefit from the concession that she has fortunately now announced. Secondly, what is the total cost likely to be?
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, am I right in thinking that all those who have suffered as a result of the delay in payments because of the computer problem will receive the minimum amount which the noble Baroness mentioned and, if they are entitled to more, will receive that under the normal rules? I have a vague feeling that one of the conditions normally applied is that the delay has to be for a certain period of time. It would be wrong in these circumstances to set a deadline of that kind. I presume that it will apply

1293
to all those whose payments have been delayed and have not received on time the benefit to which they are entitled.
The next point which I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would clarify is the position with regard to SERPS. What will the compensation arrangements be and how will they differ from the arrangements for those whose payments of national insurance pensions or other contributory benefits have been delayed?
Finally, a number of people affected are those who applied for payment of a pension to be deferred and paid on a certain date in order to obtain a higher rate of pension in perpetuity than they would otherwise have received. Presumably when such people are eventually paid their pension they will receive the full amount, the compensation which the noble Baroness mentioned and the recent uprating covered by the uprating orders. What I am not clear about is whether such people would have the option to receive either £10 or—which is likely to be a much more valuable amount—the amount which they would have received if they had deferred the payment of their pension not to the date they originally suggested but to the date when it will, because of the Government's mistake, eventually be paid.
Having said all that, I hope that those who have suffered because of this problem will feel that they have benefited as a result of our debates, the attention focused on this issue and the understanding which the noble Baroness has shown. What is important is how the Government have responded, not the origin of the computer problem itself.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, perhaps I too may express my congratulations to the Government on dealing with this matter with such despatch. It is perhaps not easy for those of us with an adequate income or maybe an understanding bank manager to understand how difficult it can be for people who are completely dependent on benefits when there is a delay in payment of them. The speed with which this matter has been concluded is a matter for congratulation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm response from all sides of the House. I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State felt able to respond to a matter which has been a concern for some time but which was highlighted at the Public Accounts Committee, as well as in debates in your Lordships' House. I am particularly grateful for the kind words of my noble friends and for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Perhaps I may seek to answer some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The total numbers we are talking about are as follows. In the case of retirement pensioners, the figure is around 178,000. Many pensioners will already be receiving their full amount because it has been manually calculated or because they already have sufficient contributions, even without the last year, to float them off the need for that additional information. There are 163,000 people in SERPS affected, and they will be dealt with and paid in exactly the same way as those on RPs. In the case of

1294
widow's benefit, there are something like 27,000 people affected. Up to about 27,000 people on incapacity benefit are affected. I say "up to" in all these cases because some people have already received their sums and some have been topped up by income support, which they will not necessarily now have to repay, and so on. Our best estimate of the total sum involved is between about £3 million and £4 million.
The noble Lord pressed me about the point concerning a "reasonable" delay. The details of the scheme will be made more widely available next week and in the forthcoming weeks. The point of using that word was to draw a distinction between what I would call a casual delay, such as when someone delays giving information or is away for a few days, or possibly even when some benefits are paid a fortnight in arrears, and the unreasonable and unacceptable delay which has been caused by the NIRS 2 computer. It is meant to be a decent and generous scheme and not a weasel-like way to protect ourselves against that kind of situation.
The noble Lord asked what the situation would be when someone chose to defer drawing down their state pension in order to gain from the additional 7.5 per cent. extra per year paid for each year of deferment in drawing down the old age pension, that being how the annuity rates balance out. In all fairness, I do not think that someone who was 66, say, could ask for their pension to be paid in November 1998 and, because of the delay, receive arrears and compensation, and then, having done a "best buy" calculation, say: "Thank you very much, but please ignore my request for it to be paid in November; I will have it paid as of August 1999 and as a result receive a higher annuity rate in perpetuity". The point at which a person says they wish to draw down their pension will be taken as evidence of their stated intention and the ordinary arrears and compensation payments will kick in as a result. I hope that that makes the situation clear.
Finally, I again thank the House for its warm welcome. I am delighted that the Government recognise that, as a result of this, many elderly people, widows and people on incapacity benefit will have suffered not only stress but worry and distress. We are offering a helpline: we can give details of that to people who wish to make enquiries. I am delighted that the Government felt able to recognise this problem, even though it was not a problem of the Government's making but one that they inherited. The response has, in my view, been a decent and generous one.
Lord Higgins: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Appeals against decisions of Board]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("10(1)(b)") and insert ("10(1)(b) or (c)").
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. Noble Lords will recall that at Report stage we inserted a new paragraph (c) in Clause 10(1) so that a decision which had been confirmed or varied on

1295
appeal might be superseded in limited circumstances. This amendment now adds a reference in Clause 11(1) to that new paragraph (c) to make good the assurance I gave on Report (at col. 821 of Hansard) that a superseded decision would itself carry a right of appeal to the tax appeal commissioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transfer of other functions to Treasury or Board]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 31, line 37, leave out from ("regulations"") to end of line 39.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment simply removes from paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 some words which become redundant as a result of changes made to the text just before the Bill's introduction but which were unfortunately not noticed and taken out. I beg to move this technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Further consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 56, line 5, leave out ("5(4)(f)(v)") and insert ("5(4)(f)(iv)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. These are two technical amendments, both concerned with adjustments made by the Bill in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987—with which I am sure the entire House is familiar! The first amendment puts right an incorrect reference to a sub-paragraph in Section 5(4)(f) of that Act. The second averts the unintended repeal of two provisions in the Social Security Act 1998 which made consequential amendments to the 1987 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals and Revocations]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 59, line 20, column 3, leave out ("12, 14,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Am amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Today's debate brings us to the conclusion of our scrutiny of the Bill. We have had some very wide-ranging debates, covering subjects as diverse as the direction of social security reform, the Contributions Agency's computer systems and some of the more esoteric regulations which underpin the social security system. I do not wish to take any more of your Lordships' time in rounding off those discussions.
Let me begin by reminding the House of the purpose of this Bill. This Bill will transfer the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. This will enable businesses and individuals to sort out their tax and contributions questions through a single government department. The two organisations will be able to combine their expertise and resources on customer service and compliance.
1296
The Bill will also transfer responsibility for policy on national insurance contributions from the Department of Social Security to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, along with control and management of the National Insurance Fund. It will also provide a single focus for discussion of improved legislation guidance and procedures. Over time, it will make it easier to achieve a gradual alignment of the tax and NIC rules.
As we have discussed, the Bill also provides for appeals on national insurance contributions matters to be heard by general and special tax appeal commissioners. As I have said, this is largely in response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, during the passage of the Social Security Act 1998.
In our consideration of this Bill we have had some useful and at times highly technical debates. I am grateful for the constructive spirit—reflected again today—with which noble Lords have approached these. This has been one of the first Bills where new style explanatory notes have been published alongside the Bill. I am pleased that noble Lords have said that they found them helpful in assisting their preparation for these debates.

In comparison with some social security debates relatively few noble Lords have spoken but I like to think that we have made up in quality what we lacked in quantity. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has brought his considerable Treasury experience to bear in both his questioning and his knowledge of tax and pensions matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has similarly brought her experience of social security to these debates with good effect.
It has been extremely valuable—if sometimes a little embarrassing—to have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, particularly on Part II of this Bill. I am sure he will be remembered—certainly within the department—for some time for his triumph in spotting a missing consequential amendment. He pointed out the matter to us in Committee when he was on his feet, and we rectified it at Report. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been unusually, though not totally, quiet in our debates—but I am sure that his vow of silence will not last for long in social security matters. I have been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his tireless attention to detail and pursuit of clarity, particularly on Schedule 2 to the Bill. Finally, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for her continual assistance and support at my side—even if at times she thought she was running a marathon between here and the Box as the technical questions flowed.
I said in my speech at Second Reading that this was a technical and largely mechanical Bill. I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that that assessment was correct. But as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said at Second Reading, it is precisely the technical Bills that need detailed scrutiny. I believe this House has given this Bill that scrutiny and that it can go to another place for consideration in better shape. I thank noble Lords who have helped in this work.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly. First, I thank my noble friends Lady Anelay of St. Johns

1297
and Lord Astor of Hever for their support on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who certainly raised some extremely important points. As always, I have enjoyed the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, particularly his legal points, which certainly surpassed any expertise that I will ever have. I thank also the Minister for her great expertise. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has spent a lot of time running back and forth to clarify particular points—I hope she is not doing so now—but the reality is that the House has benefited greatly from the Minister's expertise in these areas.
I make only one point on that. The Minister tends to refer rather disparagingly to one's Treasury experience. At the end of the day, however technical the Bill—as has been demonstrated in the debate earlier this afternoon—we are dealing with real people and real problems, and it is the technical expertise which one brings to these matters that helps us to alleviate those problems and to improve the social security system.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Certainly the Bill goes to the Commons in a much better state than it was when it arrived here. For that, we must all be grateful.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise also briefly. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on showing her usual mastery of the complex details of this highly technical Bill. I have been impressed by the way in which she has not merely relied on information that has been fed to her but has thrown into this Bill her own understanding and command of the details involved.
The House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for pressing the issue of compensation for those who have suffered from the defects in the NIRS2 scheme—which was perhaps only rather incidentally involved in the Bill but was nevertheless of great importance. We should all be grateful to him. Indeed, we should all be grateful to the Government for their very rapid and effective response to those problems.
Finally, I am grateful for the suggestion that the Bill is to some extent instigated from points that I raised on the Social Security Bill; but this is something that was raised some time ago by the Tax Law Review Committee. An obviously correct move has been made, and I am glad that the Government have made it. I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill has now reached the end of its passage through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on Kosovo, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Kosovo
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about recent developments on Kosovo.

"The situation on the ground remains tense. On Friday, over 20 Kosovar Albanians were shot in Rugovo. On Saturday, a hand grenade was lobbed into a cafe in Pristina frequented by Serbs, injuring eight, including one Albanian. Yesterday, two Serb policemen were injured when a grenade was fired into their van while they were returning from the funeral of a casualty of earlier conflict. Over 200 people have been killed since the Holbrooke agreement last October provided for a cease-fire.

"At its meeting in London last Friday, the Contact Group called on both sides to end hostilities now. They insisted on full compliance by Belgrade with its undertakings of last October and real co-operation with both the Verification Mission and the War Crimes Tribunal.

"The main focus of the meeting was on the urgent need to instil momentum into the political process. Since last October, Ambassadors Hill and Petritsch have developed the Contact Group's framework document for a political settlement. It reflects extensive consultation with both sides.

"Their detailed document provides for an interim accord for three years. That period would provide the opportunity for the creation of democratic self-government in Kosovo through free and fair elections supervised by the OSCE. The new institutions of Kosovo would enjoy a wide range of self-government, including control of its own police and internal security.

"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would retain competence only for foreign policy, external defence, monetary policy, single market, customs and federal taxation. Both Serb and Albanian communities would be fully protected with the right to elected institutions preserving their national culture, language and education.

"The framework document provides that at the end of three years the future status of Kosovo would be reviewed under international auspices.

"Despite the extensive consultation and detailed work which has gone into the framework document by representatives of the Contact Group, in three months there has not been one negotiating meeting on it between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians.

"On Friday the Contact Group resolved on a programme of action to break that stalemate. We agreed to summon both sides to negotiations on the basis of the framework document. We set a tight timetable which requires both sides to attend talks by this Saturday and to conclude negotiations within less

1299
than two further weeks. France has offered to provide a venue for the talks which will take place under the joint chairmanship of myself and Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister. Later on Friday the United Nations Security Council welcomed the strategy of the Contact Group and demanded that both parties should comply with it.

"On Saturday the North Atlantic Council also gave its full support to the strategy of the Contact Group and warned that NATO is ready to take whatever measures are necessary to avert the humanitarian catastrophe by compelling compliance with the demands of the international community. In the meantime the North Atlantic Council delegated to its Secretary-General, Javier Solana, authority to order military action in the light of the responses of both parties. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed Kosovo with President Chirac during his visit last Thursday. They agreed that both Britain and France would be willing to consider the deployment, with their Allies, of ground troops in Kosovo to provide a period of stability and peace during which a political settlement could take root.

"I was instructed by the Contact Group to convey our demands to both parties and on Saturday I visited Belgrade and Skopje. I was accompanied throughout by Bill Walker, chief of the Verification Mission. The visit increased my respect for the valuable work of the Verification Mission. It has provided instant and reliable information on the atrocities which have invariably occurred in places where it is absent, and has undoubtedly deterred further atrocities where it is present. In Belgrade I met jointly with President Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and President Milutinovic of the Republic of Serbia. I stressed to them that I came with the mandate of the united Contact Group and also backed by the authority of the North Atlantic Council. Our requirement of them to take part in negotiations under international chairmanship is the best opportunity Belgrade will get to extricate itself from a conflict that it cannot win. President Milosevic undertook to study the Contact Group proposals and to reply within a few days.

"In Skopje I met with Dr. Rugova, Mr. Demaqi and Mr. Qosja who between them represent a broad spectrum of Kosovar opinion. I stressed in all my conversations with the Kosovar Albanians that the proposals of the Contact Group offered a democratic, self-governing Kosovo free from the bloodshed of recent months. Dr. Rugova, who was elected overwhelmingly last year as leader of the Kosovar Albanians, welcomed the opportunity for talks and committed his party to participate fully in them. I also spoke by phone to Mr. Surroi, an independent publisher and a leading political figure in Pristina, who gave his full support to the proposals and expressed his willingness to participate. Mr. Demaqi who acts as political spokesman for the Kosovo Liberation Army and Mr. Qosja, leader of the third largest Kosovo Albanian party, both undertook to consult their colleagues and to let me have their response within days.

1300

"Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that the talks which we seek will take place. Nor can I guarantee that if they take place they will succeed. There remain serious issues of difference between the two sides which it will take hard negotiation to resolve, such as the nature of the review to take place in three years' time and the relationship between a self-governing Kosova and Serbia. But I can confirm that the meeting of the Contact Group showed real unity and a common determination to provide for progress towards a political settlement of the conflict. It is now for both parties to show the same commitment to finding a political solution. Neither of them can win the conflict by military means. Both of them would benefit from a political settlement. The offer of these talks, brokered by the Contact Group and backed by the Security Council and NATO, provides the best opportunity they will ever get to achieve a political settlement through dialogue. I urge both of them now to seize that opportunity and give the people of Kosovo hope for their future in place of their fear of the present bloodshed".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I extend to the House my most sincere and deep apologies that my noble friend Lord Moynihan was informed by a government office that the Statement would not be made until 4.15 p.m. He is therefore not present at the moment. I crave the indulgence of the House in making my noble friend's speech (a copy of which has been faxed to me) on his behalf. My noble friend would have said that he is very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for updating your Lordships' House on the results of the Foreign Secretary's mission to Belgrade and Skopje at the weekend. From these Benches, the Government have our full support as they actively seek a political solution to the ongoing crisis in Kosovo under the auspices of the Contact Group. We welcome the Contact Group's most recent action in summoning both sides to talks in France by the 6th February and the setting of a clear deadline for the conclusion of those talks, action which has been endorsed by both the UN Security Council and by NATO. Given that their participation in these proposed talks is not yet confirmed, when does the Minister anticipate that a response will be received from President Milosevic and the Kosovo Liberation Army respectively with regard to the demands of the Contact Group and the detailed plans which have been submitted to each party as a basis for negotiations to settle the future status of the province?
We also support the decision by NATO to authorise the use of force if deemed necessary, provided that any military action is predicated on clearly defined objectives. Can the Minister confirm that NATO forces are on 48 hours' notice, as has been reported? Is the Minister in a position to give any further details on the British preparations for the possible use of force and the likely time-scale of events should one or both sides fail to comply with the Contact Group's

1301
ultimatum by the given date? Should military strikes be authorised, what plans exist for the extraction of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission prior to such action? In the light of the possible deployment of ground troops in Kosovo to monitor any peace settlement, which has been referred to by the Foreign Secretary, can the Minister provide any further details as to what this would entail? Given the failure last October to get the NATO partners to agree to such action in principle as part of an overall settlement, has consensus now been reached, and is it the case that all leading NATO nations would now take part in such a deployment? What discussions have been held with the United States on this question, given that the Foreign Secretary himself said on Friday that there is an interesting debate going on within America with regard to the deployment of ground troops?
From these Benches we share the Government's horror at the butchery which has taken place, and continues to take place, in Kosovo and we join the Government in unreservedly condemning such atrocities. Indeed, even as the countries of the Contact Group were finalising their ultimatum on Friday the bodies of 24 ethnic Albanians were found in the village of Rogovo. Most of the victims were reported to have been wearing civilian clothes. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made, by British verifiers and others, in investigating the cause of these deaths? Does the Minister agree that there should be a role for international war crimes investigators in this work, just as she did in the case of the massacre at Racak last month?
William Walker, the head of the Kosovo Verification Mission, has confirmed his belief that he has "absolutely no doubt" that the Serbs were behind the outrage at Racak. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with President Milosevic regarding access for war crime investigators to the area? Can the Minister comment on reports last week that US surveillance teams uncovered evidence of direct involvement by senior Serb politicians and military representatives, both in the massacre itself and the attempted cover-up which followed? Furthermore, can the Minister give the House any further information on the investigation being carried out by the Finnish forensic team, given that Helena Ranta, who is leading that team, has said that there is a possibility that the bodies had been tampered with during the period they were not under international supervision and that the truth about how they died may never be known?
From these Benches, we support the Government in their belief that the international community cannot simply stand by and watch as the ceasefire agreed in October day by day melts away with the onset of spring, and the brutal murders of innocent civilians become a tragically regular occurrence.
We support the use of a clear ultimatum, backed by a credible alternative course of action, to break the cycle of violence in Kosovo and to bring both sides to the negotiating tables. Nevertheless, the Minister will be well aware that it is now eight months since the Foreign Secretary issued the first of a series of final warnings to
1302
President Milosevic. As a result of last summer's policy, driven by the puff of rhetoric but devoid of any real action, the response of the international community was even described as "dithering and disunited" by the Prime Minister's own press secretary. Can the Minister give an assurance that those days of dithering are over and that on this occasion, the Government's deeds will prove as resolute as their words?
That concludes the reply of my noble friend Lord Moynihan to the Statement. I again give my apologies to the House for the fact that he is not here in person to deliver it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, apologise for missing, I believe, the first two sentences of the Minister's Statement for the reasons already given by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We had the impression that the Statement would be a little later.
First, I warmly welcome and support the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. We on these Benches have pleaded for a long time for a stronger position to be taken by the Contact Group; and we recognise the work of the Foreign Secretary in gaining support among his colleagues on that Contact Group. We are extremely grateful and very pleased to hear that at long last strong and determined action is to be taken. We praise the Foreign Secretary for his part in that.
Secondly, it is important to remind the House that the decision to start on a very short timetable the negotiations between the Government of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and the Albanian/Kosovan delegation only reflects the more rapid timetable written into the Holbrooke Milosevic agreement which Mr. Milosevic had signed. That agreement indicated that talks would start in October and would be completed no later than November. Those who say that it is a sudden rush to negotiation have not read sufficiently carefully the Holbrooke Milosevic agreement.
As regards, decision to make ground troops available in order to support the peace negotiations, should that be necessary, have other European countries which are members of NATO, in addition to France, been willing to commit their troops? We on these Benches congratulate France on agreeing with the British Government to make troops available.
In the Minister's view, will it be possible to bring pressure to bear on the Yugoslav army and Serbian police to ensure that no further action of any type is taken against civilians in the Kosovo area while the negotiations continue, in the light of the appalling massacres which have occurred over the past few days?
Will the Minister consider again the possibility of offering to the Government of Albania the support they need, in logistical and other terms, to police that border so as to prevent the steady flow of sophisticated arms across it, given that the OSCE and NATO support the concept of sanctions against Yugoslavia? Might that also be a useful card to play in ensuring that all sides are present at a negotiating table where, if any significant interest is not present, it might be possible later to denounce any agreement reached?

1303
I conclude by again congratulating Her Majesty's Government on taking the first step towards what we on these Benches hope will be a genuine European response to the problems that beset our Continent around the edges but not within the European Union.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I start by offering apologies (if there are apologies to be offered). I am not clear what has happened as regards the timing. If anything on our side has gone wrong, I apologise, but I am not sure that it has. I hope that we can look at the matter through the usual channels. For my part, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, delivered his noble friend's points extremely well. As always, I shall do my best to answer those points.
I am extremely grateful for the support of the official Opposition on the issue. As the Statement makes clear, it is a tense and difficult time. I thank, too, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for her support. The noble Lord asked about the response from Mr. Milosevic. We are hoping for a response as quickly as possible. Mr. Milosevic said that he would consider the points put to him, as did Mr. Qosja and Mr. Dimaqi. We have said that we expect to see them this coming Saturday. Therefore for arrangements to be made one would expect that response to come very quickly indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, put a number of detailed points to me on military action. I am sure that he will understand that, while we would all sympathise with his questions on detailed military planning, it is not sensible to go into such detailed planning at present. We are in very close touch with our allies—with the United States and others. But at present the sensible action is for us to concentrate upon the need to get the parties round the negotiating table as quickly as possible. That is what we have been concentrating on with our partners in the Contact Group. That is why my right honourable friend spent the weekend in Belgrade and Skopje.
The noble Lord asked about the extraction force. As noble Lords know, the extraction force of some 2,400 strong is based at present in Macedonia. It is French led and there are 350 British personnel there. We are confident that the extraction force can do the job that we hope it will do if it were ever to come to real necessity. I stress to all noble Lords that we must concentrate on this as a set of negotiations and provide the best possible atmosphere for those consultations to take place in a constructive way.
The noble Lord also asked about the war crimes. Of course we believe that the war crimes investigator, the International Criminal Tribunal, should have access to all possible areas where war crimes have been committed. The problem has been that when the investigators cannot go to where alleged atrocities have taken place, they are unable to carry out the investigations so necessary to their work. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that UNSCR 1207, which was adopted in November last year, is a mandatory Chapter VII resolution which reiterates the need for the federal republic to fully honour its obligations towards the
1304
international tribunal. It sends a clear message that the FRY must not be allowed to flout its legal obligations for co-operation. The will of the international community has been expressed in that Security Council resolution.
We do not believe that it is a matter for the federal republic to judge whether the ICTY has the necessary jurisdiction to investigate any possible crimes in Kosovo. We believe that it has a clear obligation to comply and we shall be pursuing that. I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to join with me in the views of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, as regards the horror at the crimes which have taken place. The horror of what has happened in individual terms has been all too appallingly apparent, alas, on our television screens. I am sure that many of us have been very moved and grieved by what we have seen.
I point out to noble Lords that in all of this Her Majesty's Government have not been dithering. Whatever has been happening internationally, Her Majesty's Government have been determined to secure progress. I believe that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has shown great determination and leadership in this matter—hence the meeting over the weekend and the feeling of the Contact Group in London that my right honourable friend should be its emissary to Skopje and Belgrade during the weekend.
I reiterate to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that France has not committed itself to ground troops any more than Her Majesty's Government have done. We have committed ourselves to being willing to consider putting in ground troops. I agree that that is quite a positive statement, but I would not like the noble Baroness to think that there was a complete commitment on this issue. We are talking to our allies elsewhere. We shall need to take considerable soundings as regards the views of our allies over the provision of ground troops. We very much hope that no side will take action against civilians during this period. That is what we have hoped throughout. We have a ceasefire which has not been honoured. From the position at the moment, it is hard to know how much non-compliance with this ceasefire has in any way been sanctioned by political leadership. That is the problem which we have to address here.
We shall continue to reiterate to all the participants in this very unhappy conflict the absolute need not to use military force on the unfortunate and unarmed civilians who have very obviously been the unhappy victims of some of the dreadful atrocities that we have seen. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is enormously important that the OSCE continues to do what it can to monitor what is happening on the borders. I must refer again to a particular passage in my right honourable friend's Statement that the OSCE has been very effective in stopping some of the atrocities where it has had a presence. It is where it has not had a presence that the atrocities have continued. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to monitor the movements of weaponry in this situation. I also agree that the European dimension is a very important part of the way forward in trying to sort out this conflict.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the transitional period of three years will allow the people of Kosovo, at the end of that time, either through their elected representatives or through a referendum, to declare total independence if that is their will? Does the noble Baroness appreciate that it is an important condition to get the KLA representative to the conference table and that the option for complete independence is not totally closed off? Will she also deal with the point raised in an article in Der Spiegel this morning by one of the KLA leaders that they are about to elect their own representatives who will be in office from 10th February onwards? If that poses a difficulty for the timetable, bearing in mind that the proceedings at Rambouillet are supposed to start on the 6th, is there to be any flexibility? Would the Contact Group be prepared to extend the period of negotiations by starting, say, a week later if that were a condition which allowed the KLA to take part?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as regards the first question about the three-year period, the framework document, which has been the subject already of so much discussion, provides that the future status of Kosovo would be reviewed under international auspices. That might be through an international conference or there may a number of different ways in which that can be done. To determine at this stage what is meant exactly by the future status of Kosovo would be a mistake. I believe that that is exactly the kind of issue that should be considered in the discussions between representatives of Belgrade and the other individuals whom my right honourable friend met in Skopje over the weekend. I believe that is one of the things that the discussions in Rambouillet should be concentrated upon.
The noble Lord makes the point about possible elections making a difference and the possibility of postponement. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I believe that not only my right honourable friend but other members of the Contact Group are very well seized of the political situation. There has always been a reason for a little more delay on this matter. The international community is now pretty determined that discussions should go ahead at the weekend. If good and sound reasons arise during the week I am not in a position to judge what might be decided. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that most of the international commentators and those who know more about the situation than I do recognise that this is a very urgent situation, which needs a very urgent solution.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that Her Majesty's Government and the French would be willing to consider the commitment of ground forces. Can she clear up the position as regards the use of air power? I believe there was some suggestion in the media over the weekend that the Secretary-General of NATO had already been authorised by North Atlantic Council members to undertake air attacks in the event that the Serbians and
1306
the Kosovans do not come to the negotiating table. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clear up the position in relation to the use of air power.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I refer the noble and gallant Lord to the Statement that I read out on behalf of my right honourable friend a few moments ago. It states that the North Atlantic Council had delegated to its Secretary-General, Javier Solana, authority to order military action in the light of the responses of those parties.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the Council of Europe held last Thursday I attended a meeting with Mr. Westerdorp, the High Commissioner for Bosnia? He was asked how long he expected the civilian monitors to be in place in Bosnia. He said that it would be for at least a generation. The current cost is at least 1.5 billion dollars a year, which does not include any of the military forces. Does my noble friend agree that, whatever the success of the current initiative, we, through NATO, will be making a substantial commitment to this region for many years to come?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the cost of peace is never cheap. The fact is that it costs a great deal to keep troops in readiness on the one hand and international monitors on the other; and also, of course, to have an extraction force standing by. The points that my noble friend makes serve only to emphasise the very robust Statement of my right honourable friend, which is that no part of this dreadful situation in Kosovo can be resolved through military action. It has to be resolved through negotiation. That is why my right honourable friend has taken the lead over this issue and why all members of the Contact Group are four square in support that the discussions go ahead in Rambouillet next weekend with maximum participation from those who have the right to speak on behalf of all sides of the people of Kosovo.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Minister was careful to advise us to concentrate on political negotiations. She is absolutely right about that. But as regards military preparations, military thinking and the involvement of ground forces, I hope that the Government will put into the discussions a warning by way of what happened in Yugoslavia in the last war. The involvement of large numbers of military forces against guerrilla forces did not work at all. We must be extremely careful as to what our ground forces will do in that area, if indeed they go in there.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much take to heart what my noble friend said. I do not believe that anything I have said on behalf of my right honourable friend implies that there will be a situation in which large numbers of Her Majesty's Government's forces would be involved in fighting their way into Kosovo. That is not a point in question here. I stress to my noble friend the point which I made to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby a moment or two ago.

1307
No side—not the combatants on the ground and certainly no forces from outside Kosovo—can resolve the issue through fighting. All that can be achieved will be achieved through negotiations. That is what makes the next few days so crucial. All people of good will—not only in the contact group but also elsewhere—should bring whatever influence they can to bear upon the combatants to meet in Rambouillet; to sit round the table; and to discuss a way through this dreadful and appalling conflict.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in answer to previous questions, the noble Baroness was careful in her use of words. I believe that she was making the point that the United Kingdom and France would consider using ground troops if that were requested. What is the American position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I am always careful in my use of words, particularly when such serious matters are at stake. I was repeating what my right honourable friend said about the Prime Minister's discussions on Kosovo with President Chirac during last Thursday's visit. Both Britain and France agreed that they would be willing to consider deployment with their allies of ground troops in Kosovo in order to provide a period of stability and peace during which a political settlement could take root. It is the whole context of those remarks which is so important.
As far as I know, our allies, the United States, are still considering the matter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if it is necessary to have a deployment of ground troops, which clearly must be a combined force from a substantial number of countries, to provide a period of stability and peace, that may well be a lengthy engagement? We must recognise that that is the sort of commitment into which we and others may be entering.
Will the Minister say a little more about the situation in northern Albania and the control of the Albanian border? As we understand it, one of the problems that has led to the recent fighting in Kosovo is the provision of heavy and advanced weaponry across the Albanian border and the state of disorder in northern Albania. If we are to impose sanctions on all the participants, is that not something which the western allies will have to take on board rather more firmly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord says that a lengthy engagement may be involved. Until we get people together round a table to discuss the way forward, it is extremely difficult to judge for how long such a deployment would be necessary. Will it be for the three-year period that is being discussed at present? Quite honestly, that is not a question which can be answered at the moment. If we reach that situation, the allies will have to monitor the position closely, in the same way as we shall monitor the need to keep the OSCE monitors on the ground.
1308
While I understand the noble Lord's question and what motivates it, it is virtually impossible to answer at the moment. If we do put in ground troops, we shall not do that with a view to taking them away the following week. There would have to be a clear commitment to sustain them for the period which they were needed.
The noble Lord asked some detailed questions on the situation in northern Albania. I shall have to write to him with details about the position there. The noble Lord referred to heavy weaponry. I do not wish to give an answer from the Dispatch Box which I have to correct in writing tomorrow. Therefore, I shall write to the noble Lord and, as I imagine that many noble Lords will be interested, I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the contact group be summoned again at short notice? There appears to be a probability, or at least a possibility, that President Milosevic will not say yes or no—he rarely says yes or no—but will suggest an alternative framework for negotiation. According to some press reports, he may suggest looking again at the decisions which have been taken in relation to Bosnia. If some proposals come from President Milosevic, is it possible for the contact group to consider them almost immediately or is it wholly bound by the timetable which the Minister indicated to us?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, from this Dispatch Box I should hate to say anything which might give anybody an excuse to think that they could buy more time. As the noble Lord pointed out, President Milosevic has a history of skilfully buying more time when he believes that that is what his interests dictate. The contact group has been fairly clear about that. In the Statement my right honourable friend used the word "summoned". The contact group believes that time has run out. There is a definite date for the meeting in Rambouillet, which is next Saturday. We expect President Milosevic to be there.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what is the Government's assessment of public opinion in the former Yugoslavia? What proportion of the public does she believe is behind a negotiated settlement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in a war-torn country I do not believe that public opinion polls and focus groups are necessarily foremost in people's minds. One can imagine what public opinion must be in a country which must witness on an almost weekly basis the most appalling atrocities involving unarmed civilians, the elderly and children. Very often, there is not a man of fighting age in sight. Whether we are government Ministers or watching these appalling events unfolding in our own living rooms on the television, if we look at the faces of those involved, we can know fairly well what public opinion is at the moment.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does she agree that

1309
violence begets violence; it breeds violence? Does she agree also that everybody in this House has their breath held and fingers crossed that the talks at Rambouillet will work?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we all know that on occasions, sadly, military action is necessary. But military action by itself rarely solves the world's difficulties and wrongs. There is a particular difficulty when it involves a single country and an internal conflict. I am sure that the noble Baroness speaks for the whole House when she says that she wishes to see the discussions at Rambouillet going ahead on the most constructive basis possible.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Countess of Mar) in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Youth offender panels: further court proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 45, line 21, leave out from ("court") to end of line 27 and insert ("that the circumstances set out in the report by the panel under paragraph 2 of this Schedule accord with the provisions for a referral hack in section 7, 10 or 11 of this Act,").
The noble Viscount said: I am glad that the Committee stage was adjourned when it was last week in order for me to transform a somewhat cryptic note to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, into an amendment for his consideration. I am concerned with the formulation in paragraph 5 of the first schedule and the situation that will arise. There will have been a referral to a youth panel of an offender who falls into the right kind of categories which are set out in the Bill. Then something will have gone wrong and the question will arise as to whether that offender should be referred back to the youth court in order that the matter can be reconsidered.
The modern analogy for what now appears in Paragraph 5 is the provision in Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for breaches of community sentences such as probation orders and community service orders. In those circumstances the court, whether it be a magistrates' court or the Crown Court, has to be satisfied about certain matters, but they are nothing like as specific as they are here. It then can have the power
1310
to deal with the matter afresh, as if it had not previously made a community order, but taking into account of course the extent to which any such order has been complied with.
In this Bill the matter has been spelt out in some considerable detail. If the panel wishes to refer an offender back, the court has to go through an elaborate set of considerations. It has to look upon the finding of fact by the panel and decide whether the panel was entitled to make that finding or, if it was a matter of discretion, whether the panel reasonably exercised that discretion.
I suggest to the Committee that the relationship between a youth court and the local youth offender team, who I am sure will be a part of the panel system, will be one of mutual trust. Certainly in my experience, when dealing with my own probation service, one does not expect the probation service to bring back to court a breach of a community sentence unless there is good reason for it. And although there is technically a reason, unless there is a requirement that the court should be satisfied, there is no spelling out of the details as to what the court has to be satisfied about. I therefore wonder why it has to be spelt out in such detail in Paragraph 5.
My amendment probably does not take account of all the drafting niceties because no amendment drafted by a Back Bencher ever does, but I draw the noble Lord's attention to the circumstance of some of these referrals back, particularly those in Clause 11(4), and particularly where, in effect, the system—the contract—has broken down and it is being taken back to the court so that it can be looked at afresh.
Why, in those circumstances, should a court question the exercise of discretion by the panel? Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the following question. Supposing it goes into the details set out in the text as it now appears, and comes to the conclusion that the finding of fact is not justifiable or that the exercise of discretion was not reasonably carried out, what then is to occur? There will have been a referral back; the youth panel will have decided that the matter will not proceed; the contract will not work; and the court to whom it is referred back will really be put in an impossible situation. I suggest to the Committee that the way in which it is put at the moment is too elaborate and it could be left to a much more simple formula which will reflect the trust that will arise between the court and the youth offender team. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I should like to give rather diffident support to the approach adopted by the noble Viscount. There is a small problem which occurred to me. It is a slightly related matter, and I raise it with diffidence, but it seems to arise out of these matters. If an offender is referred back, either under the wording in the Bill at present or under the wording proposed, and the court decides that it was properly referred back, then the order is revoked in any case and the court can then proceed if it wishes, and thinks it right, to sentence the offender further.
However, if it is referred back and the court decides, for whatever reason, that it was not properly referred back by the panel and the time of the contract has

1311
expired by that time then, as I understand it, the order is automatically discharged rather than revoked and no further penalty can presumably be imposed in those circumstances. That seems to be an awkwardness which arises from the wording of this particular part of the schedule.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful, as always, for the courtesy with which the noble Viscount approaches these matters, in writing to me as he said. I sympathise with his view that the procedures for the court, the panel and the young offender should be set out as simply as possible. Also, there must be no question that the actions of the panel are put on trial in any sense at a breach hearing. However, we have to bear in mind that the court does have a role as a supervisory jurisdiction and in the circumstances it is of the greatest importance.
There are a few circumstances which may prompt a panel to refer a young offender back to the court. Clause 7(2), as your Lordships will know, gives the panel the discretion to refer the young offender back to court if he or she fails to attend a panel meeting. Under Clause 10(2) or (3) the panel shall refer the young offender back to court if there appears to be no prospect of agreeing a contract or where a contract appears to have been agreed but the young offender refuses to sign it.
Under Clause 11(5) again the panel may refer a young offender back to court following a breach of the terms of the contract. Under Clause 11(8) or (10) the panel may refer the young offender back to court if he or she fails to sign a variation of the contract, or indicates that there is a change of circumstances such as to warrant a revocation of the order. Under Clause 12(4)—and I think the noble Viscount is right, because his amendment does not deal with this but it is a drafting point, as he says—the court shall refer the offender back to court if at the end of a contract period he or she has failed to comply.
In some of these circumstances, such as failure to agree a contract from the outset, the youth offender panel has a positive duty to refer the young offender back to court. The young offender is unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of the referral order, and the court must be given the opportunity to consider an alternative sentence. The court will be able to do so as soon as it is satisfied that the circumstances did indeed take place.
In other circumstances, of course, the panel has a choice. Perhaps the most obvious example is where a breach of the terms of the contract has taken place. In those circumstances the panel may refer the young offender back to court and that is the element of discretion to which I referred earlier. This must be right, because further inquiry may be needed and the breach may be minor. Alternatively, it may have happened only once and although it may be a slip on the part of the young offender there is every belief that he or she will comply in the future. It may further have been a breach beyond the control of the young offender brought about by ill health or the actions of others, and so those
1312
circumstances need to be investigated by the panel before a decision on whether to bring breach proceedings is reached.
In such circumstances, it will not be enough for the court simply to make a finding of fact that a breach has taken place. The young offender may well agree that he failed to comply on a certain occasion but may not agree that his or her actions were sufficient to discredit the contract entirely. It is important that there should be an opportunity for the court to hear arguments on this point from the young offender, or his or her legal representative. This is not a matter of putting the panel on trial but of ensuring that the young offender has a chance to have his say.
For those reasons it is important that the court is asked to consider not only the facts—that is to say, whether or not a breach occurred—but also whether the response to that breach was reasonable and proportionate in the particular circumstances of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a specific question as to what would happen if the period had expired. The answer is in paragraph 7(3) where we see that it will be discharged.
I turn now to the question of the noble Viscount: that, is, what would happen if the court concluded that there was no breach. If the court concludes that there is no breach, the young offender remains subject to the referral order. The court may suggest some variation to the order to enable the offender more easily to comply. I appreciate that there is a good deal of detail set out here. In the context of the new method of disposal, we feel that that is right. It gives discretion and mandatory duty to the panel. I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount will feel sufficiently content not to press his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I suspect that in practice it will not matter much, but I make two points which the noble Lord and his advisers may wish to consider.
First, the magistrates do not sit only in relation to these sorts of proceedings; they deal with a whole range of matters, including ordinary community sentences. They will wonder why Parliament set out different tests and what it is they are supposed to do that is different from the other circumstances when a breach is referred back to them. All I suggest to the Minister is that there will be confusion as to the role they have to play.
Secondly, if paragraph (5) has to be explored in the detail which will be necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the court that the facts or the discretion have been rightly dealt with, then the youth court will have to go into quite a lot of delicate negotiations and arrangements between the young offender and the people who are trying to set up a positive regime to look after him. Those are not usually susceptible to a positive solution by public discussion in a court. It is unlikely that progress will be made in that forum and it is much better, on the whole, for the matter to be dealt with by the youth offending team and only in extremis, at the end, if a breach is thought to be impossible to resolve in any other way, should it be taken back to the court.

1313
The explanation of the noble Lord is perfectly reasonable in terms of the legal drafting, but when it comes to the reality of what is going to happen as between a court, a very young offender and the youth offending team which is supposed to be looking after him, the wording will not produce anything different from the straightforward and simple situation suggested in my amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry for interrupting the noble Viscount and I am grateful to the Minister for referring me to paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 1. The point I was trying to make—to which I do not need an immediate reply—is that under paragraph 7(3) an order is discharged; that is to say, nothing further can happen to the offender. I understand that that is the difference between it being discharged and being revoked. It seems to me that in some circumstances the reason for the offender being referred back to the court will be because, although the time of the proposed contract has elapsed, the offender has not fulfilled its terms. In those circumstances, if the court is doubtful about the panel's decision the offender will automatically "get off" and that may not be right.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the situation. I do not wish to press the Minister at this point to respond to my comments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Viscount decides whether or not he intends to withdraw his amendment, perhaps I can respond to both of those points. I am grateful to the noble Viscount. As I indicated on earlier occasions when he was most helpful in raising these questions, I shall give the matter further thought with officials. The noble Viscount may well be right as to the practical outcome. And, of course, I shall look again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and write to him, undoubtedly before we meet again in a week's time.
Viscount Colville of Culross: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is always most accommodating. What I want to achieve as a result of this discussion is something that will be easy and fits in with the sort of situation to which the courts and youth offending teams will have to apply their minds. I am happy to leave it to the noble Lord and his advisers to look at the matter again. There is nothing wrong with it; it is just too elaborate. If he says he will look at it again, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 45, line 39, after ("order") insert (", other than by imposing a custodial sentence on him").
The noble Lord said: This amendment prohibits the youth court from passing custodial sentences on young offenders who fail to complete a contract they have made with the youth referral panel. The youth court will
1314
retain the ability to pass any other form of sentence on such young offenders, including fines, reparation orders, supervision orders, attendance centre orders, action plan orders and community service orders.
The young people concerned will be juveniles who have appeared in court for the first time and plead guilty. Part I of the Bill requires the youth court to refer the majority of such young people to a youth referral panel. The youth panel and the young offenders will have to draw up a contract which will involve the young person in appropriate activities such as reparation of the victim or the community and in work designed to tackle the cause of offending. So far there is no dispute. If the young person does not comply with the contract, he or she will be returned to court to be sentenced for the original offence. If they complete the contract successfully, then Schedule 3, paragraph 5, of the Bill provides for the offence to be spent for the purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
This is a fairly imaginative development which will have a number of advantages over the current youth court procedures. The panel will be better able to involve a young person and the parents fully in discussing the offence, its impact on the victims and the steps which should be taken to make amends and ensure that there is no repetition. In the more formal proceedings of the youth court, young offenders and their parents often fail to understand fully what is happening and the legal procedures can hinder the process of getting young people and parents to speak and contribute fully to the discussion.
Furthermore, in a panel setting the drawing up of a contract can concentrate on the best course of action to prevent reoffending, including attention to developing the welfare needs of the young person and his or her family. I have in mind examples such as family counselling, educational measures and help with drug abuse. While courts can use welfare-related measures—for example, a supervision order—they can do so only if the offence is regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant such a sentence. In the result, many young people appearing in the court for the first time miss out on the welfare intervention which could help steer them away from further trouble.
It is important to ensure that disproportionate sanctions are not imposed for failing to keep to a contract which has been agreed in a non-court setting. The procedure of the panel will not contain all the safeguards of due process which apply in a court setting and the contract will not be subject to the full limits of proportionality which apply in court sentences.
It does not seem right that a failure to abide by a contract, agreed in a non-court setting, should be subject to the full range of youth court penalties, including custody. That is especially so as the referring court must have decided that the original offence did not merit custody before making the referral to the panel.
It is therefore submitted that it would be disproportionate to allow a court to impose custody for failure to abide by a contract agreed in a non-judicial setting, following a first court appearance for an offence which was judged not to deserve custody. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I do not agree with Amendment No. 61. When the offender first appears in court, the magistrates have at that stage the option of sending him or her to prison, if they think that it is a very serious offence. There may be marginal cases about which the magistrates need to deliberate carefully on whether to send a defendant to prison or allow him or her to appear before a panel. If the magistrates come down on the side of sending him or her to a panel, but the panel does not work in terms of agreeing a contract or the contract is not completed, the offender will return to the court. The noble Lord set out many of the options available, but it seems to me that the court should have available to it the option that it was considering when it first dealt with the offender. The Government's wording is correct in this instance.
Amendment No. 62, which is grouped with Amendment No. 61, concerns what happens if the panel system is not successful in a particular case and the youth is returned to court. As the Bill stands, the court seems to be intended to approach the matter as if the youth offender panel had never existed and nothing had happened in that respect. In some cases, that will be quite right. However, there may also be cases where the offender, having been sent to the panel—in some cases compulsorily as far as the court is concerned or by discretion—makes life so difficult for the panel that it is impossible to agree to a contract; or where the offender lightly agrees a contract and then makes no effort to pursue it.
Young people in such circumstances can be extremely manipulative of those trying to help them as well as of those trying to punish them. They can, and sometimes do, string a panel along. In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that the court should have the power to impose an additional sentence on a young offender for wasting the time of the panel—and, indirectly, of the court—by his or her behaviour. I expect that that power would be used only in blatant cases. If there is no such power, it is likely that a panel's time will be wasted by young offenders who think of it as a soft option. Once that starts, and it is realised that there is no penalty, I believe that that practice will grow. I believe that the suggestion in Amendment No. 62 is worthy of the Committee's consideration.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Cope has said. The main point is that Amendment No. 61 would fetter the discretion of the court; that is, the discretion that a court would normally have with regard to a serious offence. We must also bear in mind that only offenders who are under 18 years of age are made subject to a referral order. As they pass the age of 18, one may expect better behaviour as they mature. If young offenders have failed to co-operate
1316
with the body to which the referral order is made (instead of having been sentenced by the court for quite a serious offence), I do not think that they should be able to get away with that, as the amendment would allow.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If the Minister disagrees with Amendment No. 61, as I expect will be the case, will he tell us whether it is expected that what the court does will depend partly on the original offence, for which the offender was sent to the panel, and on the nature of the breaking of the contract, or the refusal to sign it? Are those two matters to be taken into account? I imagine that they will be, but it would be interesting to have that confirmed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support my noble friend Lord Dholakia in his Amendment No. 61. It seems reasonable to me that a child who is referred to a court by a youth offender panel should be resentenced, but without the possibility of a custodial resentence. The Minister has already said that there will be no punishment for being referred back to the court. That is unlike the response for a breach of a probation order or some other community sentence. In those circumstances, the offender is punished for the breach as well as being resentenced for the original offence.
As regards the position of no punishment for being referred back, the youth court will have had the opportunity to impose a custodial sentence when the child first appeared before it and pleaded guilty. The youth court will have decided not to impose a custodial sentence because the offence was not sufficiently serious. Therefore, I believe that the decision not to impose a custodial sentence should be carried forward to referral-back proceedings.
The merits of the limitation of the youth court's powers of resentencing will confirm the principles of restorative and rehabilitative justice and the determination not to write off a young offender who will, after all, have pleaded guilty to a first offence. Experience of working on an intensive probation project suggests to me that such schemes—I include the youth offender panels and their contracts—may require a level of maturity not always present in very young offenders. The youth court must recognise that and find another community-based sentence.
Viscount Brentford: I am not very happy about Amendment No. 61 for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton. It reduces the options open to the court, which I should like to see remain as flexible as possible.
I am intrigued by Amendment No. 62 which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Cope. I can see the frustration in the behaviour of certain young people in breaching the terms of the referral contract. Does the Minister think that being able to add to the punishment because of such a breach will change the atmosphere surrounding the contract so that it has more of a legal basis—indeed, it does have a legal basis—or rather, more of a court structure about it, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid? I like the idea, but I wonder

1317
whether it runs contrary to the type of atmosphere that this movement is trying to bring about? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response in that respect.
Viscount Bledisloe: Amendment No. 61 appears to me to make a most amazing proposition. We have a situation where a serious offence has been committed and by eloquent pleading of how extremely sorry the young offender is, how he intends to live a wonderful life thereafter, and how deeply sorry he is for the pain that he has inflicted upon the victim, the court says to him: "By the skin of your teeth, you have just escaped a custodial sentence". He then goes to the panel where, in extreme bloody-mindedness, he entirely refuses to do anything that is suggested and he is referred back to the court. Thereafter, we are told that the court who said, "You have escaped by the skin of your teeth, because you are so penitent", will not be allowed to send him to prison on the grounds that he is not really repentant at all. That seems to me to be extraordinary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not so extraordinary if one actually considers what the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, correctly identified as a new beginning in dealing with first offenders—and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, also pointed this out—who have pleaded guilty and who are under the age of 18.
We are trying to set out new measures for dealing with offenders in that particularly limited category. At present, the Bill allows the court to sentence the young offender for the original offence using the full range of sentencing options which would have been available to it if it were not for the mandatory referral. In doing so, the court must take into account the extent to which the offender had already complied with the terms of the contract and the reason given for the breach. As Members of the Committee have rightly observed, the Bill makes no provision for the circumstances of the breach or the extent of compliance to be used as aggravating factors; it is not intended that they should be.
Perhaps I may set out our thinking and try to reconcile the different themes that have been expressed in noble Lords' observations. Our thinking is that this is a completely new way of dealing with young offenders whose limited category I have already described. I support the principle and the thinking behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but I do not believe that the provision is necessary.
I turn now to the important question of this being a fettering of discretion, as argued by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not. The sentencing discretion has already been exercised. All offences made the subject of a referral order will already have been the subject of the court's discretion. I say that because, in its discretion, it comes to the conclusion that the offence in question—the index offence, if I may call it so—does not warrant a custodial sentence. The circumstances of the breach are not to be used as aggravating factors and, therefore, the situation about which the noble Lord was concerned should not be capable of arising. I hope,
1318
therefore, that I have set the noble Lord's mind at rest. I believe that our approach to these orders is exactly the same.
In recognising that this is a new form of disposal, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has taken a different approach by seeking to penalise the young offender further in the light of time wasted by the panel. We do not wish there to be a sanction for failing to comply with a referral order in the sense of added days' custody, or whatever the noble Lord has in mind. The young offender is bound to realise the consequence of non-compliance because he or she will be called back to court for a new sentence to be passed. It is not to be overlooked. I recognise, of course, that this will not be foremost in the minds of those who are under 18, but the time taken for conviction to be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will be more than if they complied with the contract because, as we established on an earlier occasion, the conviction is spent as soon as the contract is successfully signed off.
I turn now to the other questions raised, one of which came from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and related to whether or not the court, on referral back to it, would take into account the original offence when dealing with the offender. The answer is to be found in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 which says that the court,
"may deal with him in any manner in which … he could have been dealt with for that offence".
So that deals with the circumstances of the original offence. I believe that I dealt with the noble Baroness's question about the nature of the breach: it cannot be taken as an aggravation.
I believe that I also dealt with the spirit of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Again, I believe that we are at one. I simply reiterate the thinking expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that this is a new remedy and a new approach. It is, I believe, a breaking of the mould in many ways as regards the way we have dealt with this particular group of people. I stress again the fact that this is a very particular group. They are first-time offenders who have pleaded guilty and who are under 18 years of age. It is notoriously well known that, if we stop reoffending by that group, we will have made a very important start on stopping the endless recidivism which is so dismal and such a feature of our criminal justice system for young people. I hope that I have explained the Government's thinking on the matter. This is intended to be new. What happened in the past has not been universally successful.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, replies, perhaps I may put this proposition to the Minister. Although the offence which the youthful offender committed was very serious, let us suppose that the court decided not to use its power but to make a referral order instead. Let us further suppose that, as has been said, there was a complete lack of co-operation on the part of the youthful offender. In those circumstances, are we to be told that the court is not allowed to have

1319
any second thoughts on the matter? Is it bound by its original lenient offer to the young offender, which he has abused?
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may press the point that I made which is slightly stronger. If the young offender's subsequent behaviour reveals in effect that he lied to the court or misled it in saying that he was penitent and that, therefore, he only avoided a custodial sentence by so doing, it seems extraordinary that the court has to go on acting in the way that it would only have done on the basis of the lies that the young offender told the first time round.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I return to my original proposition: we are dealing with a very limited group of people. The noble Viscount used words like, "Lied in the first place", but these are people who have committed crimes and pleaded guilty. They are first-time offenders. If the court was originally over-lenient, in many ways that is perhaps a reproach on the original court's sentencing.
I am coming back to the point of principle. It is not a fetter on the discretion of the court because it exercised its discretion in the first place. If things do not work, it can use the armoury of weapons that it had in the first place, but may not impose a custodial sentence. The reason is that it made its inquiries and came to the conclusion that a custodial sentence was not appropriate for that offender. It is possible that the referral order will in effect be breached by the commission of further offences. If further offences are committed, there is no reason at all why the court should not consider re-sentencing in that context. Indeed, it would be obligatory for the court.
As I said, we believe that this is a new beginning. We need to wrench our sentencing minds away from a regime which did not work well in the past in the context of the very limited description attached to these offenders. I am not saying that they will be limited in number, but the description attached to them at present is quite limited. I believe that we have got it right. We must see whether or not we can get a productive, co-operative referral scheme working which is far more imaginative, far more reflective and far more thoughtful about the needs of young people and the way to deal with them than anything we have had in the past.
5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said something which concerns me greatly. I refer to paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 1. Assuming that Section 1 had not applied, on the face of the schedule as it stands I can see no fetter on the powers of the magistrates' court to use youth custody if that is the proper thing to do. The noble Lord has suggested that having made up its mind it would not do so in the first place, it then cannot do that if there is a referral back to it. That appears to me to ignore the words in brackets in paragraph 5(5)(a) whereby the court can deal with the person concerned as if Section 1 was not in force. Therefore it seems to me that the
1320
full range of powers is open to the magistrates. If their approach of submitting the young offender to the panel has proved not to work, they may well have to commit him to the Crown Court for sentence. Is that not right?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I repeat what I said earlier; namely, it is not intended that the circumstances of the breach should be not an aggravating consequence. The noble Viscount is right to say that there is no fetter. It is theoretically just possible in a limited number of cases that the balance may be tipped in favour of custody on resentence. However, I return to the point that the original sentencing decision has been made with knowledge of the facts and the appropriate reports. The court has come to the conclusion at the time of first sentence that it will not sentence this young person to custody; that is, a first time offender who has pleaded guilty. I shall consider these points carefully but I stress that the intention of the Government is that if a court has come to a conclusion that custody is not appropriate for a particular young person, it would be extremely rare—although theoretically it is just possible—that custody might then be imposed.
Lord Renton: I apologise for intervening yet again but in the light of what the noble Lord has said, what effect does he maintain is to be derived from the words in brackets on line 37,
"(assuming section 1 had not applied)"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Section 1 applies in the distinct circumstances set out. The offence or any associated offence is one for which the sentence is fixed by law. The court is not proposing to impose a custodial sentence and was not proposing an absolute discharge. That is the cross-reference to Section 1.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not wish to prolong this discussion much longer. However, the Minister should think carefully about this matter. Much as one hopes that the whole matter will be positive for the young person involved, when one thinks of the young people who get into this position there is no question that one of the main questions they will bear in mind is what might happen if they do not do what is stated in the contract. That is the critical point. They will need to know whether there is a possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed. The phrase in their minds will not be the one that the Minister mentioned at the Dispatch Box a moment ago; namely, that a custodial sentence is theoretically possible. I do not think that is of much use to a 14 year-old who has been extremely naughty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the points that have been made are perfectly reasonable ones by way of probing and inquiry. I repeat what I said to the noble Viscount earlier. I shall give some thought as to whether the true answer is to reconsider the approach proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, or whether one needs to rely on specific and firm guidance. I take

1321
the noble Baroness's point that what is to happen after sin has been committed in this world is a useful consequence to be considered.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not wish to delay the Committee further. However, when the Minister reconsiders this matter I hope he will bear in mind that I also want the new system to work. I believe that it stands a good chance of working in a large number of cases. However, I think it will be more likely to work if there is a potential sanction for wasting the panel's time than if there is no sanction at all for so doing. Such a sanction will make the system more likely to work as we all wish.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that too much is made of the fact that the measure reduces the courts' sentencing options. I have sat as a magistrate for about 17 years and for some of that time in the youth court. As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, the primary aim is to consider the welfare needs of the youngsters who appear before the court. My amendment has precisely that aim. I accept that we are now discussing a new way of dealing with young offenders. I shall monitor how the courts deal with the provision. That will give us an opportunity to address this issue in future. Overall my analysis and the research evidence clearly indicate that although magistrates have custodial powers at the present time, on average they do not impose a sentence for longer than 2.3 months. Therefore I believed it was necessary to introduce this provision in this part of the Bill. However, as I said, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 47, line 36, leave out ("and (4) do not affect the operation of paragraph 5") and insert ("to (5) do not affect the exercise of any power to deal with the offender conferred by paragraph 5 or 14").
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group seek to clarify the position regarding the availability of parenting orders and bindovers when young offenders are referred back to court having breached the terms of a contract and it is decided to exercise the power of re-sentence. Our intention is that where the parent of the child is responsible for the breach, the court should have the option of issuing a parenting order and a bindover should also be available in these circumstances. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as I believe he has raised this question on an earlier occasion. I accept readily that the Bill as currently drafted is not sufficiently explicit as regards the availability of these disposals. Therefore I propose amendments to Clause 4 and Schedule 1 which make it plain that the prohibition on the use of these disposals when making a referral order does not affect the ability to use them when the young person is being dealt with by the court. I believe
1322
they are entirely in harmony with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for taking that point on board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Functions of youth offending teams]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
ETHNIC MONITORING OF YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS
(" . The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the ethnic monitoring of—

(a) persons referred to youth offender panels;

(b) the decisions of such panels, including decisions to refer offenders back to a court; and

(c) decisions made by courts in respect of offenders referred back to them by youth offender panels.").

The noble Lord said: This matter has already been debated. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Interpretation of Part I]:
[Amendment No. 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of age or incapacity]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 12, line 27, leave out ("17") and insert ("18").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simply to probe as to precisely why the cut-off age is 17 rather than 18 when the provisions of the Children Act refer to the age factor as 18. Will the Minister explain that aspect of the provision? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, became more interesting to me when I examined the equivalent legislation for Scotland. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 also provides for the protection of vulnerable witnesses. The age chosen in that Act is 16, not 17. That makes it all the more interesting that 17 has been chosen for this part of the Bill as opposed to 18 in the earlier part.
Lord Rix: I support these amendments. The Children Act 1989, the over-arching piece of legislation concerning the protection of children, specifies the age of 18 for the upper limit of childhood. As the guidance to the Children Act states that, "Children with

1323
disabilities are children first", that principle should apply to 18 year-olds with learning disabilities in this legislation too.
Lord Swinfen: I have my name to one of the amendments in this group. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. One should of course protect children, no matter what age is defined as the age of maturity. As I understand it, 17-year-olds are still "children", and therefore should be treated as such under this Bill as they are under the Children Act.
I also find it odd that in the second part of this Bill the age is suddenly reduced to 17; whereas the Long Title of the Bill refers to "offenders under 18". Why is there this sudden change? It does not make sense.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The age limit up to which child witnesses are eligible for assistance from special measures by virtue of their youth is based on the earlier child evidence provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Under that Act, certain measures are available for children up to the age of 17 in sexual offence cases, and up to 14 in cases involving violence.
For the purposes of this Bill, we considered that children under the age of 17 might need the special protection measures in the Bill whatever the alleged offence, simply on the grounds of their youth, and that it would be right to make them eligible for help on that basis and that basis alone.
I accept what has been said or implied. All age limits are to some extent arbitrary. A child can buy cigarettes at 16, drive at 17 but not buy alcohol until he or she is 18. A girl may be criminally responsible at 10, cannot consent to sexual intercourse until 16, but is not adult for the purposes of adult prison until she is 17. So there are varying age limits and, as the noble Lord has indicated, they vary within different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right. The Children Act 1989 set the age limit for a child at 18. But that age limit was for the purposes of that Act. It has not led to a general re-framing of other legislation.
That does not mean—this is an important point—that a 17 year-old witness cannot have access to special measures. Under Clause 16(1)(b) the Bill allows 17 year-olds to claim eligibility for special measures on the grounds of intimidation, disability or disorder, or the nature or circumstances of the offence, which might otherwise reduce the quality of the evidence that they have to give. So it is not a matter of a non-safeguard for those aged 17-plus.
If a young person has given evidence in chief, or has been cross-examined by way of a video recorded interview, that video recording will continue to be admissible in court even if the young person has passed the age limit in the meantime. And if the young person has the critical birthday in the middle of giving evidence, any special measures granted previously on account of youth will continue to apply.
Although there is not a perfect symmetry in any of these connections, 17 seems about reasonable, subject to the safeguard to which I have referred. It is not a
1324
disqualification thereafter. There are particular safeguards. We have had to set a balance. In our judgment 17 is about right.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I hope that there will be guidance notes to accompany this Act and that the point about safeguards will be clearly identified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("or both").
The noble Lord said: I wish to point out that this piece of legislation displays a tendency towards grouping people into two camps: children who require special measures because they are children; and people with a learning disability or mental health problems who require special measures because of their disability or illness. By adding a provision to indicate that a witness may require special measures because he or she has a learning disability and because he or she is a minor will prevent learning disabled children from falling between those two stools.
I am particularly concerned about 17 year-old witnesses with learning disabilities. I realise that learning disabled children will be included in the legislation under the general heading of "children". However, I feel that there is a need for a positive reinforcement of their presence since they often seem to be invisible in the legal process. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: We have slid seamlessly from youth offender panels on to the totally different and vitally important matter of the conduct of criminal trials and the position of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.
I wish first to make some general observations on this part of the Bill. I think it is more appropriate to do so on this amendment than on the previous one dealing with the age at which young people can obtain the special protections that the Bill provides.
We can all agree, I hope, that the balance between the interests of victims and the rights of the accused in a criminal trial is uneven. The accused has rights guaranteed by law or procedural rules. It is proper that a defendant should have safeguards against the abuse of power. However, until recently, the interests of the victims, falling short of formal rights in an enforceable sense, were accorded lesser recognition. This part of the Bill is an important step towards re-adjusting that balance.
At Second Reading I declared an interest as president of Victim Support. I repeat that declaration now. Since 1991, Victim Support has been creating a national witness service to assist the victims of crime and their families and friends in every Crown Court in the country. I believe that there are now 86 Crown Court centres where Victim Support provides that service.

1325
It is funded by the Home Office. A fruitful partnership has been developed, with trained volunteers offering support and information to over 120,000 victims annually before, during and after hearings in court. More recently that has been supplemented with a similar service in 130 magistrates' courts. We are now near the end of what I hope will prove to be positive negotiations with the Government to extend that service to all magistrates' courts. There is thus a realistic prospect of a further extension taking place in the future.
Because of this work, Victim Support, in the person of its highly respected director, Helen Reeves, was the only non-governmental organisation invited to take part in the interdepartmental working party on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, on whose report this part of the Bill is based. The report was published in June 1998 under the title Speaking Up for Justice.
It will be no surprise that Victim Support should welcome the potential improvements in the handling of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, although it has made a number of comments. The most important refer to the structure of Clauses 16 and 17, which are the subject of these amendments. They depart from the working party recommendation which would have made eligibility for assistance automatic for all category A witnesses, which is, broadly speaking, those who fall within Clause 16 of the Bill, including witnesses under the age of 17, which was the subject of the previous amendment, and discretionary for category B witnesses, broadly those within the scope of Clause 17 of the Bill.
My main purpose at this stage, as we begin consideration of these clauses, is to ask the Government to explain their reasons for not following in the drafting of the Bill the approach which was proposed by the working party of their own officials. We may be informed by the noble Lord that it is a matter of drafting, but what appears in the Bill is a far more legalistic approach, turning on the test of "improving"—that word is used in some places—or "not diminishing" the quality of evidence. This is a concept which many victims will find hard to comprehend and it may be that even in this House we shall need some explanation from the Minister in order to understand how the test will be applied in the courts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with the point of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and two other noble Lords, which is quite short: at page 12, line 30, to include "or both". It is clear in the Bill—and indeed explicit in Clause 21(1)—that the court may consider a witness eligible for assistance on various grounds, and not simply one. Clause 16 merely provides that, if the court is satisfied that a witness fulfils either part of subsection (1), he or she will be eligible to apply for special measures.
I hope I can give the noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rix, some comfort by saying unambiguously that I would expect an application made in respect of a child who had a degree of disability to be made under both parts of subsection (1) and for it to set out why the child needs particular measures because of age and disability. The child would then benefit from
1326
the presumption under Clause 21 that a video recording of his evidence-in-chief would be admitted and that he would give further evidence by live link. At the same time, the application could set out why different or further special measures might be needed because of the child's disability and would continue to be needed even if he were to reach the age of 17.
I entirely accept that it will be extremely important to ensure that lawyers preparing applications understand that they can be made on several grounds. I believe that that is best achieved through guidance and training.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, generously paid tribute to what the Government have been doing in support of a most worthy organisation, which I personally have supported over many years, and I join with him in his well-deserved tribute to the director, Helen Reeves. He mentioned funding. I believe that the Government have a good record over the past 18 months of increased funding to Victim Support. I think he was putting a fly over my nose to see whether the discussions which he described as positive might not be the subject of an announcement. There will be an announcement quite soon and it is probably left for the Home Secretary to make it. We certainly realise that the role of the victim has been inadequately thought about. Organisations such as the NSPCC have done a good deal along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated.
In Speaking Up for Justice it was said that children who may be obviously disadvantaged and those who have a mental or physical disability should automatically have special measures. Paraphrasing the noble Lord rather brutally, his question was, "Why can we not have those measures automatically?" We want to focus the measures on those who really need them so that they will be available only if the court considers that they will improve witnesses' evidence. The court will then have to be careful and discreet in examining which measure, or combination of measures, will best serve the witness's needs.
My understanding is that those who may have a physical or mental disability, or both, do not wish to have an exclusive list because, whatever one has by way of list, one is bound to leave someone out and second thoughts perhaps make the system inflexible. It will be something of a culture change for many who sit in court, but we want the courts to be much more open-minded and alert to the fact that what the courts want is the best evidence and that simply relying on the procedures of the 19th century, perhaps, is not sufficient. We believe that this provision gives a flexible power to the court. I stress that I believe that guidance, training and encouragement have a good deal to offer.
With specific regard to the amendment, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, needed it. I think he may well have recognised that he did not need it and I hope that the assurances I have given him have fulfilled his purpose.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances, which I shall be able to read in Hansard tomorrow morning and wave in front of my officials at

1327
MENCAP and other organisations. I cannot answer for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for whose broad support on this matter I am grateful, but, with the assurances of the Minister ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("suffers from") and insert ("has a").
The noble Lord said: Grouped with Amendment No. 69A are Amendments Nos. 70 and 87. It is probably helpful if we deal with them all at this stage, because I think that there will be nothing between us. The noble Lords, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen and Lord Dholakia, wish in Clause 16 on page 12, line 35, to leave out "suffers from" and insert "has". This is not hair splitting; I believe that my amendment is better because it leaves out "suffers from" and inserts "has a". We have produced exactly the same result but I think that the Government have trumped the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and improved on his amendment by introducing the single word "a". That is another step forward. I think my best amendment in the past was to insert "but"; I have got it down from three letters to one.
The approach we adopt with regard to Clause 29 is rather different. The measures in Clause 29 will be available to the group of witnesses who are eligible under Clause 16(2)(a)(ii). They will be available to those who need help because of a disability or disorder under subsection (2)(b) or (2)(a)(i). In those parts of Clause 16 the phrase "suffers from" is to be retained. I understand the reasons why noble Lords have not tabled an amendment to those parts of the clause.
For some witnesses who are eligible under Clause 16, we think that "suffers from" may well be an appropriate description—for example, for those who suffer from degenerative or progressive disease, or who are undergoing courses of treatment for their condition, or who are suffering "from" a mental disorder.
We have approached this as carefully and thoughtfully as we can. We ought to be comprehensive and consistent in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not persist but will withdraw the amendment at Clause 29 and accept the government amendment to Clause 16. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 70 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the Minister for his new amendment. It supersedes Amendment No. 70, tabled by myself and other noble Lords, and Amendment No. 87 which is consequential. I accept the Minister's explanation and, at the same time, I agree that the English used in Amendment No. 69A is considerably
1328
better than I used in Amendment No. 70. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in not moving Amendments Nos. 70 and 87.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert (", the extent to which the witness requires support and the views of relatives, carers, advocates and other relevant parties").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 71 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 and 77 which are grouped with it.
First, I will say a little about Amendment No. 71. I very much welcome that the Bill makes provision for what may seem to many to be obvious but is often overlooked; namely, that an individual's opinion counts for something. All too often, third parties of one stripe or another confidently claim to have a monopoly on the opinions and expectations of an individual. Within MENCAP there is currently a huge drive towards facilitating self-advocacy. We would like to encourage that in relation to witnesses. However, in many cases, self-advocates still require some support in order to express their views. Without such support they might neither perceive their potential vulnerability nor the possibility of intimidation.
Without support, many people with learning disabilities lack the communication skills to make their views known. Without support, they do not understand terms such as "intimidation" or "vulnerability". People with learning disabilities may have difficulty with taking in new information, handling complex material and communicating effectively. They may need support to help them to think of what they want to say, or they may need encouragement to answer a question. For this reason, I would like provision to be made for support at this early stage.
Without this provision, how can people who may need special assistance because of their difficulty in understanding the formal procedures adopted in court make a sensible judgment about whether or not they will need assistance to participate in these measures?
Turning to Amendment No. 72—and following on from the points that I have just made in connection with Amendment No. 71—I see no reason why people close to the witness cannot be consulted in order to determine whether or not the witness has a learning disability and the extent of that disability.
As to Amendment No. 77, Clause 20 allows for expert evidence to be marshalled in considering whether a special measures direction should be made available. I am not quite sure what definition of an "expert" the Government have in mind. Is an expert a psychiatrist unknown to the witness, who can be shipped in to make a broad medical assessment of a witness's intellectual impairment, or is he somebody who, in a professional capacity, counsels the individual in the circumstances of his every day life—for example, a social worker or a community health official?
Let us not forget that the eligibility criteria for special measures includes the individual's social functioning as well as his mental capacity. If assessment for special

1329
measures consists of nothing more than labelling somebody's mental age or other general formula, then his actual capacity in relation to the special tasks ahead as a witness is likely to be overlooked.
Sometimes it is worth looking a bit closer to home, which is why I propose a new subsection. Advocates, carers and relatives should be consulted where appropriate. These are the people who are often best placed to understand the more subtle patterns of behaviour and fluctuation in capacity, and to give support to a witness in stressful circumstances. These parties should, however, only be consulted where relevant. I very much appreciate the tensions which can exist in relationships between a person—disabled or otherwise—and those closest to them. But that should not debar the court from taking opportunities to enlist their help where that help is genuinely needed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am in broad agreement with the purpose of Amendment No. 71, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. However, I think it should be expressed rather differently. It should read,
"the extent to which the witness requires support and any views expressed by relatives, carers, advocates and other relevant parties".
If we do not put it in the way I have suggested, the court will have the rather strange responsibility of gathering up the various people mentioned, which it may find very difficult to do. If, on the other hand,
"relatives, carers, advocates and other relevant parties",
are in touch with the witness about the matter, then they can come to the court and express their views. Although the noble Lord's purpose is very commendable and necessary, it must be expressed differently. In his other two amendments, the purpose is expressed in a way that is acceptable. There it reads "the evidence of in each case, and that makes it quite clear.
Lord Windlesham: Before the noble Lord replies, I wish to raise a small point following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. Perhaps the noble Lord will ask the draftsman to consider whether the word "views" has the precision of meaning which one hopes to find on the statute book. I do not have an alternative suggestion, but "views" is surely diffuse and imprecise.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to support this group of amendments, with which I have great sympathy. Obviously I take into account what my noble friends have said about the detailed wording.
I wish to make an additional point. In these circumstances it seems that helping and supporting the witness in this way actually helps the court to arrive at the right conclusion in the case that it is considering. It is not just a question of being sympathetic to a witness who may have been a victim of crime, but of getting at the truth and getting the right decision in court.
Lord Swinfen: This Bill seeks to achieve justice. Young people with mental disability need the support of
1330
those whom they know and are confident with rather than strange experts, by which I mean those strange to them. It is important to bear in mind that a number of these young people may also have a speech impediment and only those who are close to them may understand them. I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, even though it may require improvement in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time I am in absolute agreement with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The object is to obtain the best possible evidence for the court and the provision is there in the pursuit of justice. We have come to this particular area of evidential law and practice very late in the day. I fully appreciate that these amendments are designed to ensure that the court takes account of the views held by a witness's relatives, supporters, carers, advocates and other relevant parties. I believe that I can live with "views". I am not sure of the extent to which that differs from "opinions", although opinions sometimes come in expert form and are expensive, whereas the views of relatives and parents are perhaps more persuasive and are free.
Therefore, the views and opinions are directed at the extent to which the nature of the disability or disorder as defined in subsection (2) is likely to diminish the quality of the individual's evidence. Where these are relevant to the court's decision it will take them into account. I do not however believe that it needs to be on the face of the Bill and perhaps I may spend a moment or two on the reasons why. In most cases the parties to any proceedings will have determined at a relatively early stage the witnesses they will or may want to call. If either party considers that one of its witnesses needs special measures under Clause 19 it must prepare and make an application to the court. One must carefully bear in mind that Clause 19(1)(b) gives the court power of its own motion to raise the issue as to whether such a direction should be given. The application must set out the reasons why the witness should be considered eligible for special measures and what measures would be likely to improve the witness's evidence. That can include a family member who deals with someone with a speech disability because the ordinary interpreter (as we should regard such a person) will do a good deal less satisfactory piece of work than someone who knows the individual in question, can calm him, reaffirm the trust between them and give much more effective, practical help to the court. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
In preparing the application there will have been discussions with the witness and, where appropriate, one or more of the witness's relatives, supporters, friends or any other relevant person who can advise on the help that the witness is likely to need. That may well be the help described by the noble Lord. One must bear in mind that the witness may well have his own views and may not want assistance from relatives. One must not fall into the trap of which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has warned us in the past, rightly, and take away decision and individual judgment from someone simply because

1331
he has a disability. He may not want his relatives to assist him. Many witnesses with disabilities are perfectly able to speak for themselves and, much more importantly, may well want to do so. The court should take account of those views in its decision on eligibility and the measures to be provided under Clauses 16(4), 17(3) and 19(3)(a).
If one has a very young or deeply handicapped witness a relative, supporter or carer may be a better advocate for the witness's needs than the witness himself. There is nothing to prevent any of the parties suggesting to the court, or the court deciding on its own motion, that it should hear the views of a relative or carer. We must allow the court flexible discretion in a particular case. I am happy to underline to the Committee the existing common law powers that allow the court to hear evidence of such views whenever it sees fit. Therefore, the discretion is already there.
A second effect of Amendment No. 71 is to require the court to consider the extent to which a witness requires support when it determines whether or not he is eligible under Clause 16(1)(b). This is not necessary. The court is already required under that subsection to consider whether the quality of a witness's evidence is likely to be diminished by disability or disorder. Under Clause 19 it is required to consider whether any of the special measures would be likely to improve or maximise the quality of the witness's evidence. These provisions constitute a duty on the court to consider whether the witness requires support from a special measure in order to give his best evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, helpfully drew attention to the question of different provisions for experts. That is not in any way intended to imply that an expert is better than a parent, carer, relative or friend. It simply falls in the context of the making of rules of court. The making of rules of court relates simply to the provision of expert evidence, in the way that there is now provision for expert evidence in many cases and no particular provision is made for an ordinary lay witness. An expert witness is anyone whose credentials satisfy the court whether because of academic qualification or expertise. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested, the expert may well be a psychiatrist who perhaps knows the consequences of the disability of the particular individual. Therefore, Clause 20(6) does not attempt to imply that an expert is better, but is simply a provision for making rules of court for the practical disposal of court business.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is any way in which the court by or on behalf of a witness may be alerted to special needs? The clause provides that the parties may do so or that the court may do so of its own motion. It occurs to me that, for example, Victim Support may know of circumstances that are not within the knowledge of the parties and wishes to bring that to the
1332
attention of the court. In a sense that is a matter for the court of its own motion, but it may be necessary—I do not know—to make clear that that possibility exists.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. There is no reason why Victim Support or any other caring organisation whether or not in loco parentis should not notify the court. That has been my experience in the past where similar organisations which are not in a quasi-parental or caring relationship have been helpful, but I undertake to check the matter further. Based on past experience I believe that that is the position, as the noble and learned Lord has correctly pointed out.
Lord Rix: With the assurance that the Minister has just given the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, with the proviso that I should like to read most carefully the Minister's very generous response to see whether or not it is necessary to contact his department again before the Bill reaches its next stage. On the basis of the assurances just given in the noble Lord's summing up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The court must state in open court its reasons for refusing an application that a witness falls within subsection (2)(a).").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that distinguished members of the judiciary in England and Wales—a number of whom I am happy to say are present in the Chamber—will be fully supportive in assisting both defendants and witnesses in the granting of dispensations for special measures where appropriate. However, one must guard against the rejection of special measures on principle, whatever the principle might be, or without due consideration of the specific requirements of the individual.
While Clause 20 stipulates that a court must give its reasons for refusing an application for a special direction, there is no requirement on the court to state in open court its reasons for refusing an application for special measures on the ground of intellectual impairment. I envisage judges doing so as a matter of course but I should like to ensure that the process is open and transparent. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My name is also to the amendment and I support it. I should have thought it essential to make certain that the court is accountable, and accountable to the public, which all courts must be. Such a provision may also be useful to a higher court should the case go to appeal at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept that. That means it would be inevitable that a court making such a decision and determination would feel obliged to specify its reasons in open court. I think that any judge who did not do that would be swiftly and severely rebuked by a higher court of appeal.

1333
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned, the courts are required by virtue of Clause 20(5) to give their reasons for refusing an application for a special measures direction. I repeat: if a court decides in any particular case that a witness does not have the condition claimed, I do not believe that the court would fail to explain it.
I entirely accept that if witnesses are to have faith in the new system it is important for the courts to be clear about their reasons for refusing applications for special measures, in particular if a court accepts that a witness has a disability but does not accept that special measures would improve the quality of the evidence.
I believe that the best way to ensure consistency is trough training and guidance, not through added detail on the face of the Bill.
Lord Rix: I receive encouragement from the faces opposite that by withdrawing the amendment I am doing the right thing. Having received nods and smiles, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, whose name is to the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("section") to end of line 34 and insert ("if he requests such treatment").
The noble Lord said: Clause 17 brings us to the question of witnesses who are vulnerable because of fear or distress for various reasons in any type of case. In those circumstances any witness can have the protections, the special measures, provided by the Bill—screens, or whatever is appropriate to his case. I think that we are all in agreement on that.
The amendment draws attention to subsection (4) of Clause 17 which makes special provision about complainants in sexual offence cases. As drafted, subsection (4) provides that such complainants will have such protection unless the court thinks that their evidence will not suffer by reason of their fear or distress as set out in subsection (1).
If the court thinks that their evidence will suffer, as described in subsection (1), they are eligible anyway. The subsection therefore at first sight appeared to achieve nothing. Complainants are either eligible under subsection (1) or they are not. But that makes one wonder why subsection (4) is in the Bill. I presume that someone asked himself the question as to whether complainants in sexual offences cases need special eligibility for protection even if the subsection does not provide it. If we fully trusted the courts, the provision would be totally unnecessary. However, by inserting a subsection along these lines, it makes clear Parliament's will that complainants in sexual offence cases should be especially eligible, even though the detailed provisions do not provide that.
However, what special eligibility should complainants in sexual offence cases have for the measures set out? It seemed worth considering adjusting subsection (4) to provide that those complainants should have protection if they want it. In other cases it would be the court's discretion. In the case of vulnerable witnesses the court would wish normally to grant the application where those witnesses were frightened or in distress and unlikely to give good evidence on that account. But it would be the court's decision. However, in order to draw special attention in the case of sexual offences, we might wish to provide that it would be the complainant's decision.
Clause 19 (1) makes clear that parties to the proceedings—they presumably include the complainant and the prosecution—can request special measures; it is not always up to the court. The amendment provides that if a complainant in a sexual offence case requests the special measure, it should follow automatically. There is no doubt that fear and distress can be very great. We have read about that; no doubt some Members of the Committee have seen that in courts. I am not against drawing special attention to those cases. I do not believe that subsection (4) does so satisfactorily. I believe that Amendment No. 73A provides a better way.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I regret that I have to oppose the amendment. In subsection (1) there is a burden upon a party who is calling a witness to satisfy the court that that witness is likely to give evidence which will be diminished by reason of fear or distress. The burden is on a balance of probabilities because the word "likely" is used. However, in subsection (4) there is a presumption in the case of a complainant that that person is eligible for assistance. It would be for the other party to convince the court on balance of probabilities that subsection (1) does not apply. Therefore there is a marked distinction as to where the burden of proving the issue lies between those two sections.
However, that is not the reason that I oppose the amendment. The tradition of criminal trials in this country is that they should be held openly; that the accuser and accused and their witnesses should be seen and heard on an equal footing. Over the years we have recognised that some vulnerable people require special protection. But a balance has to be sought in deciding the appropriate way to deal with vulnerable witnesses.
Stress is inevitable in the trial process. Any person who goes into court in any capacity, whether it be the judge, the jury, the advocates or the witnesses, is subject to a degree of stress. That is part of the process by which the truth ultimately emerges through our adversarial procedures. While it may be right to give special protection to people who are shown to be vulnerable, as these special measures do, one cannot take that too far. What is suggested by this amendment is that any complainant, however robust they may be in their personality, can, at their own request, require special measures. I find that dangerous.
Why do I find that so? It is easier to maintain a false story behind a screen or at the other end of a video link than it is to go into the witness box and confront the

1335
person against whom one makes allegations. To my mind, one can "cotton-wool" too much. If there are vulnerable witnesses, certainly there should be special measures, but if they are not vulnerable, let the traditions of fair and open trial in this country remain.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Under the Bill at present, as it has been rightly said, complainants in sexual offence cases will be presumed to be eligible for assistance unless the court is satisfied that they are not.
Therefore, the court will have to consider whether the witness's evidence is likely to be diminished by fear or distress. If it considers that the witness's evidence will not be affected, having considered the witness's own views under subsection (3), then it will decide that the witness is not eligible.
We expect that unless the witness satisfies the court that he or she does not need help, he or she is likely to be deemed eligible. It is then for the court to consider, on application, whether and which special measures would help.
There may well be cases where the court wishes to dissent from the witness's views, perhaps because of representations made by the prosecution or the defence. The court needs to keep proper control of the proceedings. We believe that it is important that the witness's views should not be paramount.
The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be to make the witness's views the only consideration for the court. It would remove the court's discretion to decide whether the witness was eligible for assistance.
Perhaps we may take the case of someone who is genuinely in fear or distress. That may well be such that the witness does not want to express it and seeks the protection of the special measures. The prosecution or the defence may well have other material extraneous to the witness's own request, which may well be compelling. I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment deals with that situation at all. As a matter of principle, it should be for the court to decide whether a witness is eligible for assistance and not the witness, because I do not believe that the witness's determinative choice would be in the interests of the trial process. It seems to us that we have got it right in the current provision: those who need help are considered eligible for help while preserving the court's overall discretion. Having reflected on the way in which I have put the matter, I hope that the noble Lord will come to a different conclusion.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall reflect on the way in which the noble Lord has put the matter. I see that there is a difficulty as regards permitting the complainant in a case simply to request special treatment. There is some force in the argument and I understand it. Not being a lawyer, I am slightly confused by the difference in the tests as regards subsections (1) and (4). It seems to me that subsection (4) is somewhat stronger although it specifically includes the test in subsection (1) as being the key as to whether protection is given. I had better
1336
take further and better legal advice on the matter in order to divine the difference between the two. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Special measures available to eligible witnesses]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 14, line 3, after ("that") insert (", no later than 1st January 2000,").
The noble Lord said: I do not believe that I have been so knee-deep in paper since we were re-writing the last act of "Dry Rot" one hour before the curtain went up on the first night. In moving this amendment I am delighted that the Home Office secured an early legislative opportunity to advance the protection of vulnerable witnesses. I fully support the principles of this Bill. Once on the statute book this legislation should accelerate the implementation of the broader proposals contained within the earlier consultation paper Speaking Up For Justice, which deals with every aspect of the judicial process from the first stage of reporting a crime to the police to the court room and beyond. I am aware that excellent work is going on behind the scenes in bringing all these measures to fruition although it is clear that some will take longer than others.
For instance, the removal of wigs or robes will come into force nationally as a special measure the day after this Bill becomes law. Others, such as the use of intermediaries, will require careful piloting and evaluation over time before full implementation can be considered. Nevertheless, it would be reassuring to know that the Government have an end date in mind for the culmination of their implementation strategy.
This amendment seeks clarification on the timetable leading to the introduction of new measures. The Government want to pilot these measures. When will the pilots begin? How long will the pilots last and on what date will the special measures be implemented nationally? If a date has not already been set, perhaps consideration should be given to 1st January 2000 as proposed in my amendment.
Perhaps I may also raise the question of how the Government envisage tackling situations which may arise where a witness requires special measures in court, which are only available in court rooms in another county. I raise that point because the experience of giving evidence may be extremely traumatic for some people with learning disabilities. I fear that relocation will only add to the trauma. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has pointed out, Part II of the Bill gives effect to a very large number of recommendations made in the Speaking Up For Justice report. It is 26. The implementation is considered as part of the wider programme of reform of the way in which our criminal justice system treats vulnerable witnesses.

1337
We have a steering group set up to oversee the implementation of all the recommendations in Speaking Up For Justice, not simply the 26 in the Bill, but the other recommendations as well. We hope that the implementation programme will be ready before the summer.
Some of the legislative and non-legislative changes are, of course, inter-dependent. We want to identify witnesses early on who need help and then treat them appropriately thereafter. It is not realistic to think that everything in the Bill can be brought into force by the end of the year. In many cases I believe that it should not. We know only too well that poorly implemented legislation is almost as bad as no legislation at all.
There is an enormous task as regards training guidance needed to ensure that all criminal justice practitioners, not simply those who sit as magistrates or judges, are able to use the new provisions. Some of the special measures mean buying or hiring special equipment like video and live link facilities. That cannot begin until after Royal Assent. There are some ideas in the Bill, as regards video recorded cross-examination, that have never been tried. Several Members of the Committee have expressed concern as to how they will work in practice. We need to implement them quite carefully.
Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in one or two ways. The new measures to help witnesses will cost about £6.3 million. The cost of preparing applications for witnesses who need measures will be about £1.7 million—I have rounded that up slightly. That is per year. The use of live-link evidence will cost about £1.8 million over 10 years. The cost to the CPS applying for live links will be about £348,000. The cost of CPS video recorded evidence-in-chief will be about £683,000 per year. So quite significant costs are involved.
That is not used to indicate that we are not wholly committed to the purposes and principles of this Bill. I am simply giving those figures to reassure the noble Lord, and others who share his concerns, that we mean to implement this Bill and to put the measures in place. There is quite a lot of work to be done. I have given the figures only to indicate that there is significant work to be done and it could not usefully be done were we to have a timescale as rigid as 1st January 2000. But I assure the noble Lord that we mean to get on with this.
Lord Rix: I recognise that 1st January 2000 is only a short time away, as I am sure we are all only too well aware. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the costs for ensuring justice for people with learning disabilities do not enter into the Government's thinking. With that assurance ringing in my mind and, I am sure, the belief that all these measures will be implemented as soon as is humanly possible, without reference to the costing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Special measures direction relating to eligible witness]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 15, line 3, after ("witness") insert ("or any other party to the proceedings").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, did an extremely good job in rewriting "Dry Rot" at the last minute. I am having less success in trying to rewrite parts of the Bill.
The amendment is intended to draw out whether other parties to the proceedings may say whether they believe that special measures are not required. It is not difficult to imagine a witness thinking that it would gain sympathy with the jury if there were special measures of one sort or another. It may be difficult in such circumstances for the court to refuse. However, the defendant or people acting for him may wish to express a view.
It may be that another part of the Bill makes that possible and my amendment may be unnecessary. I infer from the reference in Clause 20 to "uncontested applications" in that context that those applications can be contested but I am not clear as to how that can be done unless my amendment is accepted.
However, I am encouraged also by government Amendment No. 75A, which is grouped with this amendment. That refers to the next clause. It appears to be making a similar point. Therefore, I believe that other parties to the proceedings should be able to express views on those matters. I suggest that my amendment may be necessary to achieve that. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the spirit in which this amendment is moved, although I suspect it is unnecessary. However, it provides me with an opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that there would be no question of any—if I am still allowed to use the expression—ex parte proceedings, as there is in public interest immunity applications.
Lord Windlesham: This amendment provides an opportunity to refer to a concern that has been raised by the NSPCC about the impact of Clause 19(2) and Clause 19(3) in relation to child witnesses. Those subsections require the court to determine whether any of the available measures would, in the court's opinion, be likely to improve the quality of evidence given by a witness, and then to determine which measures would be likely to maximise the quality of the evidence.
The court has to consider all the circumstances of the case. The views expressed by the witnesses are only one circumstance to be considered. The court must consider also whether that special measure may,
"tend to inhibit such evidence being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings".
In the opinion of the society, that is potentially a more stringent series of hurdles to leap than the threshold which currently exists. In its view, if the proposed legislation is not amended, there will be a real risk that

1339
child witnesses will receive even less assistance from the available special measures when the intention is that they should receive more assistance.
I am not sure whether the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would make matters worse or better from the NSPCC standpoint. However, I ask the Minister to take note of those observations and to write to me. I shall make sure that the reply is passed on to the proper quarter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am extremely grateful for that. It would trouble me in particular, since I was a trustee of the society until the election intervened, if those were the consequences. I shall look at that with particular care with officials and I undertake to write to the noble Lord in the way that he has generously suggested.
I should say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that we expect that applications would be made inter partes. However, I do not wish to mislead the Committee. Clause 20(6)(d) enables rules of court to make provision for confidential, sensitive information to be used for such an application and that is allowed to be withheld from any party to the proceedings. It is possible, in rare cases, that such information may well be legitimately necessary for such applications. I must sound that cautionary note because the noble Lord and I will know of some cases which we can easily remember where that may be a proper safeguard. But I agree with the general proposition that those matters should be inter partes.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I believe that it is better dealt with by my Amendment No. 75A to Clause 20. It is important to have a statutory requirement for the court to take into account what measures a witness says he would find useful. The court must be required to consider whether a special measure will inhibit a party's ability effectively to test the witness's evidence. That normally means asking the parties for their views.
We do not need an additional requirement to consider the views of every part to the proceedings. In practice, it will usually have considered the views of the party calling the witness and making the application. In the course of considering whether the measures will make it difficult for any party to test the witness's evidence effectively, it will have to consider any other party's views if the witness is relevant to the case against that party. There is nothing to prevent the court seeking any party's views at any time, if it wishes to do so.
If a court decided to make a special measures direction of its own motion, I should certainly expect it to consult the party calling the witness as well as the witness and the other party. Therefore, the court will have considered the issues as to how effectively the witness's evidence can be tested and what measures the witness would wish to use when it makes the original direction.
The government amendment is intended to ensure that it is possible for both parties to make representations about those issues later on if circumstances change. The
1340
Bill at present only allows the party which applied for the direction to ask for it to be overturned or varied, unless the court decides to do so of its own volition.
Liberty and, separately, the Guild of Editors have suggested to me that either party should be allowed to apply for a special measures direction to be varied or discharged if the party is aware that there has been a material change of circumstance since the direction was made or was last made. Having thought about it, I believe they are right. There should be equality of arms, as it were, between the parties. My amendment will achieve that. I am grateful to those who have brought the matter to my attention. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment as not being necessary in the light of my explanation and I ask the Committee to accept my amendment because I believe that it does justice to both parties when there has been a supervening change of circumstance.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may make a request of the Minister. When he replies about the NSPCC submission, will he send copies to other noble Lords? He did so previously and it was a great help. What the NSPCC says about Clause 19(2) and (3) is extremely disturbing. I wish to be certain that the noble Lord is right.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness is right. I did not say so on this occasion, but my invariable practice is not only to write to the noble Lord who raises the issue but to all other Peers who have participated in the debate or similar debates. I always place a copy in the Library, too. I should have said that, but perhaps your Lordships would take it as read in connection with any undertaking about letter writing that I give.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support the improvement to Clause 20 as suggested by the Minister and the government amendment. I am not sure why my amendment to Clause 19 is not also necessary, but I can see that the court must consider all the circumstances of the case. I suppose that that covers the matter sufficiently. Having had the Minister's reassurance that my amendment is unnecessary, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("might tend to") and insert ("will").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 75, I am aware that in providing special measures for witnesses the court must primarily focus on the necessity for quality evidence and, as a corollary, on the circumstances and requirements of the individual witness. However, I have concerns that Clause 19(3)(b), which allows the judge to rule out the use of special measures on the grounds that they might tend to inhibit the quality of evidence, could be used inappropriately either on grounds of principled objection to the use of special measures or through misinformation about the likely impact of special measures. The language in the clause could be tightened up simply, but with important

1341
effect. The Minister has already corrected my English and I hope that he will allow me to correct the English in the Bill. My amendment suggests that rejecting special measures on the basis that they "might tend to" inhibit such evidence is not ground enough. Rather, special measures should be ruled out only if the measures "will", with a greater degree of certainty, inhibit the evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment because I believe that it is more in keeping with the spirit of the legislation than the words in the Bill. Where an eligible witness is the main witness for the prosecution, and without whose evidence the prosecution will fail, I would not put it past a clever lawyer to argue that the words "might tend to" are appropriate in his case and rule him out so that he could not give evidence with the necessary support. It would be much more difficult for a lawyer to do so if the word "will" were inserted. It would strengthen the case and strengthen the court's hands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We return to the balance drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We must not go too far in attending to the needs of a particular class of witnesses but not constantly bearing in mind the needs of the defendant and his witnesses in a criminal case. I understand the spirit behind the amendment, although I have to dissent, but if it were accepted the court would have to be sure that giving any special measure to a witness would inhibit the ability of the other party in the proceedings to test that witness's evidence before it could refuse the measure.
Clause 19(3)(b) allows the court the discretion not to award a measure or measures if it considers that there is a marked possibility that it would inhibit the witness's evidence from being properly tested; in other words, "might tend to inhibit". That is a fair balancing act, bearing in mind that not all defendants are guilty simply because they are accused. The purpose of an adversarial trial in public is to protect the defendant's rights as well as to be tender about the rights of the complainant and the witnesses.
We believe that this balancing act needs to be sustained. The adoption of a further inhibition in the terms put forward by the noble Lord goes too far the other way. If the court has any doubts about whether it is possible adequately to test a witness's evidence, if evidence is to be given with the assistance of a special measure, it should not award the measure.
I believe that such conflicts of interest would be rare. The measures are designed to include the quality of a witness's evidence, but they are not designed to prevent the evidence he gives from being challenged. I do not believe that we should go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, goes in the amendment.
Lord Rix: I have no wish to push the Minister off the tightrope in his balancing act at this stage. I should like to read his response in Hansard and consult with
1342
my colleagues before perhaps returning to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Further provisions about directions: general]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("by the party at whose request the direction was given,") and insert ("made by a party to the proceedings,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("the") and insert ("more than one").
The noble Lord said: Without wishing to make the application process for special measures unduly bureaucratic, it seems to me quite straightforward for the court to reconsider at least once any application for special measures which has been rejected. It is unlikely that potential witnesses will pluck their desire for special measures out of thin air. More often than not, the needs will have been identified earlier and support will have been provided during the police and CPS processes. If needs have been identified earlier, it makes sense to offer continuity of provision throughout the justice system. Therefore, if support were denied at this last hurdle it might be sensible for the court to reconsider. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot accept the amendment. I know that it is well-intentioned, but I believe that the consequences would be adverse. Clause 20(6) is intended to enable the rules of court to stop parties from renewing applications for special measures once the court has turned them down. The exception, quite rightly, is where there has been a material change of circumstances.
Applications for special measures will normally be made at a pre-trial hearing. It is very important that any directions made about special measures to be used at the trial should be binding. The purpose of this is to ensure as far as we can that the witness will know before the trial how he will be giving evidence and will be able to prepare himself appropriately. The judge must take into account more than simply the witness's circumstances. He must decide whether those circumstances will have an effect on the quality of the witness's evidence; whether the measures proposed will be able to improve the evidence; and whether special measures might inhibit the ability of other parties to test the evidence effectively. Therefore, there may be a number of good reasons to refuse an application for special measures not related to the witness's disability or distress.
We do not think it right that the parties should be able to renew applications simply because they do not like the decision. It will delay the trial, which is a vice, and more importantly and fundamentally, it will be confusing and distressing for the witnesses. The first application should be the last application unless there is an actual change in circumstance which means that

1343
different measures might be needed or that the court might sensibly take a different view. I am sorry to put this quite so plainly, but I think the noble Lord's amendment will do a great deal of damage to those who need protection.
Viscount Bledisloe: May I ask the noble Lord a question? "A material change of circumstances" normally in law, I think, means something that has happened since the application was made and not facts that were available at the time of the application. Supposing the facts had not been fully laid before the court on the first occasion, perhaps because the witness had a disability or through fear did not really explain the situation properly. Should it not perhaps say whether there has been a change in the circumstances which were put before the court on a prior occasion, to allow for the situation where there were facts which the court did not know about but which do not technically amount to a change of circumstances because they have not occurred since the application was made?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is certainly a point which I will consider. However, I do not want to be in a position of allowing, encouraging or enticing those who make applications simply to be able not to place the circumstances upon which they rely fully before the magistrates or before the judge at a pre-trial hearing on the basis that they can say "Well, we did not have this information available and this is a material change of circumstance". I will certainly look at that, but at the moment, subject to reviewing the point that the noble Viscount has made, I think that the present formulation is right. I will certainly look at it again, but without any undertaking, because I think we have got it right.
Lord Rix: I should hate to cause any damage to court proceedings with regard to people with a disability and others, as indicated by the Minister. I am of course delighted that he is prepared to look at these slight alterations to a part of Clause 26 and no doubt we shall see signs of this at the next stage of the Bill. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Special provisions relating to young witnesses]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("must") and insert ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 21 deals with special provisions relating to young witnesses. The tiny amendment which I seek is to Clause 21(2) which says that,
"In such a case the court must (subject to subsection (5))give a special measures direction…".
I am seeking to remove the word "must" and put in the word "may" so that there is greater flexibility. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord with extreme
1344
brevity on this occasion. I wonder, however, if I may just make a few more comments on this. I think that in all circumstances we must not fetter the discretion of the court to do whatever justice requires in the infinitely variable circumstances which can arise, many of which are unforeseeable. If we are in doubt we should always give the court a discretion, and I think that this amendment is therefore an important one.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was indeed extremely brief and perhaps, because of that brevity, he did not make an additional point which has occurred to me—but knowing his expertise, it may also be that it is not a very good point! It seemed to me that subsection (5), to which all this is subject, does indeed give a good deal of discretion to the court and goes a long way towards saying "may". Therefore, it would be much better if the word "may" was inserted as the noble and learned Lord suggested.
Lord Warner: I should like to suggest that we do not pursue this particular amendment and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that for 10 years there have been on the statute book provisions in relation to video-taped evidence by children. It seems to me that the Bill as drafted gives a pretty clear message about the will of Parliament in this kind of area. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a point that I made at Second Reading. It is worth bearing in mind a Home Office police research report published in 1996. It found, and I quote,
"There now appears to be considerable reluctance on the part of judges to allow video evidence and interviews to be used."
I suggest that we need to stick to the wording in this particular Bill because this Bill is actually about ensuring that the courts give adequate protection to vulnerable children, particularly in cases involving sexual abuse. I suggest that this amendment would actually weaken that kind of protection.
I draw your Lordships' attention also to some of the statistics that I quoted at Second Reading. I will not repeat them, other than to show that prosecutions for sexual abuse of children of one kind or another dropped very dramatically between 1985 and 1995, when the Pigot recommendations were in force. I suggest to your Lordships that this actually demonstrates that there might perhaps be some lack of enthusiasm on the part of some courts for admitting video-taped evidence. If I may, I would suggest that we keep to the working of the Bill as presently framed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord says, Clause 21 creates the presumption that witnesses under 17 will give their evidence-in-chief by means of a video recording made before trial and any further evidence at the trial will be given by live television link.
The court cannot, on the current drafting, dispense with these measures unless it is satisfied that they would not improve the completeness, coherence and accuracy of the child's evidence. This amendment, if carried, would dispense with this presumption, making the arrangements merely a possibility for the court to consider.

1345
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is quite right that this would undermine arrangements for child witnesses which have been in place since 1992, because they were inserted by the Act of 1991 in the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. Since that time which, as the noble Lord said, is several years ago, it has become increasingly common for child witnesses to give their evidence-in-chief on video soon after the alleged offence has taken place. A child's memory is often fresher at that stage and it reduces the number of times a child must be taken through his evidence, and the less formal setting outside the court can mean that the child is more relaxed and able—this is the important aspect—to give better evidence.
Since the amendments to the Act of 1988, many children have benefited by giving evidence at trial by live link away from the intimidating setting of the court and away from those who are sometimes unsympathetic and sometimes hostile. Until now, live link has been available mainly for children in cases of sexual offence or physical assault allegations. We believe the measures should become the norm for all child witnesses. We live, after all, in a visually literate society, which is well used to the medium.
The Bill therefore creates the presumption that all child witnesses who are called to give evidence should be able to do so by video-recorded evidence and live link, no matter what the offence being tried, unless the court is satisfied that the measure is not needed by the witness. The importance of Clause 21 and its present presumption is that it gives those working with children confidence to make a video recording of evidence-in-chief in the expectation that it will be admitted; it will give a child some certainty about how he will give evidence at trial. Everyone who has worked with children in these circumstances knows that one of the terrible burdens we put upon them is the burden of uncertainty—how the child is to give evidence very often many months after the alleged incident, and many months to a child of tender years is a lifetime.
We recognise that we need certain exceptions. If the court can be satisfied the witness does not need the measures, it will not have to award them. That applies if the court considers that other measures would meet the child's needs or that the child did not need any measures at all. Of course, the overarch is that the court can still exclude a video recording or part of it if it considers that would be in the interests of justice or because proper procedures and rules had not been followed when it was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated earlier—I agree with him—that the court process is stressful for judges, for practitioners and for advocates. But we need to bear in mind that a child is not just a small adult; it has different needs that we have overlooked for far too long. We are therefore adamant in our view that this clause is properly drafted for the circumstances with which we deal.
Lord Ackner: I apologise for startling some of my colleagues with the brevity of my introduction. I wanted
1346
them to know that I read in Hansard the censorious observations the Lord Chancellor made in my absence last Thursday following an "aberrant" Division which I caused.
Having listened to the Minister I should like to reflect on what he says. There appears to be considerable substance in it and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Screening witness from accused]:
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
("(4) The screen or other arrangement may not prevent the witness from being seen by representatives of the news media unless the court gives permission.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 79A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79C and 80A.
These amendments derive from concerns expressed by the Guild of Editors—an institution which represents 300 editors of national and regional newspapers as well as its editorial counterparts in commercial broadcasting and the new media. Its interest in the Bill relates to new reporting restrictions and extended statutory powers of the court to exclude the press from the courtroom.
The guild feels that if the current restrictions are not amended, it could have an unintended but disproportionate and unnecessarily highly restrictive effect upon the publication of matters of public interest; for example, for police to appeal to the public in murder inquiries. They could also impede the proper application of the open justice principle and discourage reports of legal proceedings.
Some proposals, such as the extension of anonymity for under 18 year-olds beyond the restrictions of Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act, predate the current Government. The guild welcomes attempts to curb abuse of the new provisions which appear on the face of the Bill and within the Explanatory Notes. However, the Bill will still unduly curb previously lawful publication unless amendments are made. Even then, those will have to be backed by Statements in Parliament by the Minister and perhaps guidance to the courts.
Editors continually rely on the court's discretion to allow them to demonstrate that the parties, clerk, judiciary or Bench have misinterpreted or misapplied the law or ignored precedent, and thereupon persuade the courts that orders restricting reporting should be modified or lifted. The guild feels that the proposals in the Bill will be easily exploited to protect those who find publicity embarrassing instead of vulnerable witnesses being protected, as is intended.
It seems likely that the special measures directions will be routinely deployed in the courts, given their applications to proceedings in respect of sexual offences and those involving 17 year-olds. Editors have no doubt

1347
of the alacrity with which applications will be made for the protection of witnesses, particularly parties who appreciate the potential for the avoidance of adverse publicity if the press and public are cleared from the court and there is no danger of any report of a failed application until the determination of proceedings.
We suggest that open justice safeguards should be included in the Bill to preserve public scrutiny of legal proceedings and the communication of an account of the proceedings to the wider public by the media. We suggest that the Bill ought expressly to provide that the press and the public should be able to see and, more importantly, hear the evidence given by live link. Unless the Bill is amended courts may consider that the press and public presence is optional. The Bill ought to provide that the press and public ought to be able to attend the court and hear evidence given by means of a live link if and when the court has moved to another place which has facilities for live linkage which the normal courtroom lacks. Provision should be made to ensure that the press and public can view and hear any video-recorded examination or re-examination.
The guild also fears that Clause 24 will be exploited to avoid embarrassing publicity providing an easier route to the in-camera proceedings than current measures. We find it difficult to understand why the presence of the media's representatives is likely to intimidate a witness in connection with the proceedings or would facilitate such intimidation. I understand that current powers of punishment for contempt of reporting restrictions under Sections 4(2) and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would presumably meet many of the potential concerns. The power to exclude the press and the public should not be routinely used in all cases of sexual offences. Complainants automatically enjoy anonymity under the law and protection under media codes. The scope for contentious cross-examination and any fear of consequent salacious reporting is reduced by the Bill's provisions in Chapters II and III.
It is welcomed that the Explanatory Notes contain the statement:
"It is expected that the press would normally be allowed to remain".
It is important that the press, as the public's representative, be permitted to remain in order to retain the element of public scrutiny which is essential to open justice. Exclusion would run counter to past practice and be inconsistent. For example, the press have the statutory right to attend youth court proceedings, so it makes little sense to create an anomaly and enable their exclusion when under 17 year-olds appear before adult courts. The courts may also permit the press to stay in the absence of the jury and the rest of the public in other circumstances without prejudice to the proceedings.
The guild fears that the new power creates a precedent for a routine departure from the open justice principle. We suggest that the Bill could be amended to limit expressly the circumstances in which the press can be excluded. Currently the wording could be interpreted by the court as requiring the opposite. By singling out some media representatives for exclusion, the Bill unfairly excludes newspapers and news agencies but, interestingly enough, not television or the new media or
1348
magazine journalists or, indeed, authors. In any event, exclusion suggests that the real object of the provision is to restrict publication even in the circumstances where the current powers, and those in Chapter IV of the Bill, would not be justified. I do not believe that is the Government's intention.
The media and other parties ought to be given the statutory right to challenge applications to exclude them. The restriction of the rights of parties, or the court of its own motion, is inconsistent with the provisions introduced to meet this country's obligation under Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR by the Crown Court Rules Act, as amended.
Either party might seek to use Clause 24 to avoid embarrassing publicity, although the witnesses in question, including the complainant, might well wish to present their case in open court, and, in the case of complainants of sexual offences, might well be prepared to waive anonymity as well. It is possible that schools, public institutions, public services as well as defendants whose care and conduct may be called into question would prefer that young complainants of abuse or assault should not have an opportunity for their accusations to be stated in open court. Applications may be motivated by the desire to limit embarrassing publicity indirectly, although presented as applications in the complainants' best interests.
We believe that there is a danger of creeping secrecy. That is intensified by the possibility of rules of court enabling exclusion orders to be made without a hearing and through the non-disclosure of sensitive and confidential material. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify whether charges left on file would mean that the proceedings had been determined. Will guidance be given on the scope of the binding effect of directions? Does a direction made by one court automatically bind all others; for example, if cases pass from the magistrates' courts to the Crown Court or from any court to an appellate court.
Media publications which fairly and accurately report proceedings in open court enjoy statutory and common law defences in defamation and contempt. The Defamation Act 1996 reaffirmed Parliament's support by extending the defence of absolute privilege. The Bill deprives the press of the benefit of such statutory defence in common law counterparts. We believe that the Bill should ensure that the press and public can hear and view live-link and video-recorded evidence at the same time as the jury as part of open court proceedings. Also, the public should have access to transcripts of evidence. That ought to be introduced.
If the public and press are excluded from the court, the statutory defences of the Contempt of Court Act and Defamation Act 1996 will not apply to media reports. That may mean that the press will be wary of reporting anything said by the witness, even if no reporting restrictions are made. That could mean that only the other party's case, including all other evidence which discredits the witness, without the witness's rebuttal, is fully reported. Presumably, that could act as a disincentive to the witness. Alternatively, because in the case of a party who called the witness, the proceedings

1349
cannot be reported fairly—for example, the alleged victim's version cannot be reported properly, and only that of the alleged perpetrator—the media may decide that it becomes impossible to produce a fair and accurate report of the proceedings as a whole and instead produce a brief report or no report at all.
Loss of opportunity to give evidence in public due to another's application will also prevent matters of importance reaching the public domain without threat of libel action. The effect of the restrictions might be lessened by ensuring that transcripts are available to the press, with an extension of appropriate defences to protect fair and accurate reporting of their contents.
I apologise for the rather lengthy explanation of the amendment, but the issues are extremely important. I also apologise to the Committee for the fact that I have strayed slightly beyond the rather narrow confines of the amendment. However, I gave the Minister's team notice of that. I realise that he will not necessarily be able to answer every question that I have asked this afternoon, but I hope that he will give me some reassurance on the principles and, if necessary, write to me on other points. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In supporting these amendments, I must declare that as chairman of an independent radio company I have some responsibility for news gathering and broadcasting. The fundamental and basic principle is that there should be a fair and open trial subject to public scrutiny by the press and the public. From that base, one begins to consider restrictions on that principle.
My experience of being engaged in a lengthy trial in which screens were used to screen witnesses and part of the proceedings were heard in camera convinced me that only in the most exceptional cases should there be restrictions placed upon the press. In the particular case that I have in mind, the result was followed by damaging rumour and speculation in the press through to the culmination of the appeal processes. On reflection, it was not in the public interest that there should be restrictions of that kind.
The Bill deals with the protection of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, those witnesses can be safely protected without preventing public scrutiny by the press and the media of what is said while they are giving evidence.
The proposal in Amendment No. 80A that,
"Representatives of the news media may not be excluded … unless the court specifically so decides",
has the positive benefit that the court must give consideration to the issue before excluding the press from the court. I support these amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am always grateful to have advice from the Guild of Editors. As I said earlier, one of my amendments resulted from its representations. We have a good record of paying careful attention to editors' interests and those of the broadcast media, as we can demonstrate by virtue of what was formerly
1350
Clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill and the amendment to the Human Rights Act, so welcomed by our colleagues in the press.
I entirely agree that it is not right to exclude the press from proceedings simply because they may be embarrassing to public figures. The noble Lord may be interested to know that I am meeting representatives of the print media in the next few days and, as always, I am happy to see representatives of the broadcast media. If there is any sensible way forward by way of amendment either to Clause 24 or to the other clauses with which the noble Viscount dealt—I do not chide him at all because he was developing a theme that concerns later provisions—I am more than ready, as always, to see whether we can safeguard all legitimate interests.
On the specific amendments, which have a much tighter function, the purpose of the screen or the use of the live link is to reduce stress. They save the witness from having to see the defendant. The screens can also be used to avoid sight lines from the public gallery. That is very important. Very often, the brute intimidation of witnesses, simply by people sitting in the public gallery, is extremely effective, even if they do nothing but sit there mob-handed. The use of neither the live link nor the screen is intended to prevent anyone in the court hearing the evidence; nor from seeing the witness if the court thinks that it is practical and desirable.
Clauses 22 and 23 provide a list of those participants who must be able to see as well as hear the witness, even if no one else can. That does not include the defendant—although the court may include the defendant—but it includes the judge, the magistrates, the jury (if there is one), and at least one legal representative for each party. We think it essential that they should be able to see the witness, to test the evidence and decide what weight to give it. We also think that an interpreter or intermediary, or anyone else recognised by the court as being there to assist or support the witness, should be able to be in eye contact with him or her.
These amendments seek to ensure that there should be a presumption that representatives of the media should be able to see the witness when a screen is used, and that they should have a right to be able to watch a witness giving evidence via a live link. It may well be desirable for the press to see as well as hear the witness giving evidence. Sometimes it will be possible, depending on the court layout and the nature of the equipment being used. They will always be able to hear what is being said.
However, I am not convinced at present that it is in the interests of justice that these clauses should specifically provide for the press. Court lay-out is very important. Obviously we have inherited an estate, which means that many courts are suitable while others are not as regards the flexibility that one needs. It may not be possible to arrange for the representatives of the media or the public to see the witness or the live link unless the facilities in the court permit this. It is not an easy question. I put this to the noble Viscount rhetorically—and I do not even invite him to write to me: would he

1351
be satisfied if representatives of the media were simply two in number, or do we have to have all the competing representatives of the media present?
I should point out to the Committee that news agencies are covered as representatives of the media. Magazine journalists and those writing books could be excluded because of the exclusion provision for members of the public.
Clause 24 may require the press to be excluded from the court while the witness's evidence is being given. However, that power can only be used where it is determined by the court both that a witness is eligible for "special measures" and that this particular measure is needed to improve the quality of evidence provided to the court, leading to the consequence that the court decides that a particular group or groups of people should be excluded from the court while the witness gives all or part of the evidence. That would be an exclusion for that part of the trial only.
Clause 24 is drafted with a reference to people rather than various galleries or parts of the court, like the public gallery or the press box. So the court does have flexibility to decide which groups of people should be excluded. It might be someone who was not a member of the family of the witness or of the defendant. In the case of a racial attack, it may be members of the public who have proclaimed themselves to be part of a racially motivated group; indeed, it could mean anyone other than members of the press. Alternatively, members of the press could be allowed to stay in the public gallery while others would be required to leave.
In certain circumstances—for example, in a distressing sexual case—the court may wish to exclude everyone, including the press, for that part of the evidence. The court may do so not to stop reporting but simply to allow the witness to give evidence in private without the presence of spectators. The court is already required to specify which people it wishes to exclude when making a direction under Clause 24. It will already have to consider whether this should or should not include the press.
If one looks at Clause 19(4), it will be seen that this encourages a considered decision because it provides that,
"special measures directions must specify particulars of the provision made by direction in respect of each special measure which is to apply to the witness's evidence".
So there are significant safeguards against hasty or apparently ill-considered decisions.
I am not persuaded of the need for these amendments, although I recognise that what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, have been speaking about goes beyond the narrow confines of the amendments. They are contending on principle that justice ought to be published and ought to be capable of being reported. I certainly believe that to be a fundamental principle, though in some circumstances, which should be as limited as possible, there may have to be restrictions. Of course, there is at present a derogation from that principle.
1352
I believe that a useful way forward is to indicate to the Committee that discussions have already taken place between representatives of the press and broadcast media and officials in the Home Office. From my memory, that was Wednesday of last week. Moreover, I have already arranged a further appointment with officials and representatives of the print media and myself within the next few days. I reiterate that I am perfectly happy, as always, to see representatives of the broadcast media again.
It is most important that we do not fetter the free press; but it is equally important that we pay careful attention to the needs of those who are vulnerable. My mind is open. I cannot guarantee that we will achieve a compromise that is satisfactory to those whom I regard as friends and colleagues in the press or, indeed, to the principles put forward by noble Lords. However, this is a useful marker. I recognise what the noble Viscount said; namely, that he was using these proceedings as an occasion—quite rightly—to develop a wider theme. I shall also pay careful attention to what he said on the wider themes. I hope that we can work together and bring something forward. I repeat: I actually believe in a free press.
7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I apologise to the Committee for straying slightly beyond the narrow confines of my amendment. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with that aspect. There are different issues about reporting restrictions with which we will deal when we come to Clauses 43 and 44. Indeed, having read carefully what the Minster said today, we on this side of the Committee will have to consider what amendments we wish to table in that respect.
Perhaps I may make a few points as regards the amendments now before us. I accept that there is a difference between what one might call the press and the public—indeed, perhaps what one might describe as the press and a hostile public. There is a difference between the two. As the Minister said, it may be desirable for the public gallery of a court to be closed because it is regarded as hostile to the witness due to the composition of those who are there. I do not necessarily believe that that means that members of the press should be excluded. One does not necessarily follow the other because there are different circumstances involved.
The Minister asked me rhetorically how many members of the press should be present and whether two would be enough. It is possible that two would be enough. As I am sure the Minister knows better than I, if, for example, members of the Press Association or a similar organisation are present, the transcript or the result of the proceedings are then available to the public at large and, indeed, to the rest of the press.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely take the noble Viscount's point. However, one could imagine a racially motivated case where the only representatives of the press were perhaps people from the National Front. It would not be a case of them being employed by the mainstream press, but they may be present on behalf of

1353
one of their wretched, pathetic little magazines. One has to work these things through quite carefully, probably in conversations of the sort that I mentioned.
Viscount Astor: I take the Minister's point. That is an issue which I believe ought to be considered by the Government and discussed by the Minister when he meets representatives of the press. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's response However, I am not sure that he has gone far enough at present to satisfy my concerns.
Amendment No. 80A would put the onus on the court. It says:
"Representatives of the news media may not be excluded under subsection (1) unless the court specifically so decides".
That is an important onus and it is one to which we shall return. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposition. I believe that it is important for the courts to have to go through a process whereby they do decide such matters—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support in that respect—rather than it being an automatic process that the press are normally excluded. We want the onus on the courts to make that decision on an individual basis. There is a danger that a kind of precedent will be set whereby it is normal for the press to be excluded.
The Minister generously said that he would talk to representatives of the press. I shall study carefully what he said this evening, and I hope that he will study my rather long introduction to the amendments. In the light of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Evidence by live link]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 79B:
Page 18, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Where a direction provides for the witness to give evidence by means of a live link, the court may give permission for a support person, who is not a party to the case, to be present with the witness.").
The noble Viscount said: I can be as brief with regard to this amendment as I was verbose on the previous amendment. This is a simple amendment. It provides for someone to be present to support a witness when the latter is giving evidence by live link. There may be people who need such help, whether they are children or elderly people. It is not the easiest process to give evidence by means of a live link, as anyone who has used teleconferencing will be aware. When I was a member of the government, I found that process incredibly difficult. I am not sure that it made life easier. It is a difficult process for people who are not used to it. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment or a similar measure to enable a witness to have a support person present to enable him or her to feel less intimidated by the whole process. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Speaking Up For Justice recommended this measure. As the noble Viscount indicated, it is important that a supporter should be a
1354
neutral person capable of giving moral support to a witness but not interfering with the evidence. The amendment is not necessary as supporters are already allowed to accompany witnesses in court, and in many courts may accompany them in a live link room. However, that practice is not universal. The Interdepartmental Steering Group on Child Evidence is considering the practice to try to achieve greater consistency across the country. That work will obviously be a useful basis for arrangements for supporters for adult witnesses. I hope that on that basis the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79C not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Evidence given in private]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 19, line 4, at end insert ("under section 16(1) or (2) or 17").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I wish to acknowledge the invaluable support yet again of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Dholakia. I have been most grateful for that support throughout the afternoon. I seek to make it clear through this amendment that the Bill gives people the opportunity to give evidence in private and that this measure will be available to people with learning disabilities and mental health problems as well as to those who are eligible for special measures on the ground of the fear of intimidation.
For many people with learning disabilities living in the community even minor instances of intimidation may have a major impact. Minor intimidation may reinforce the perpetrators' impressions of their power and a victim's comparative weakness and may even lead to more serious offences. The court should therefore take seriously the cumulative effect of verbal abuse and intimidation against witnesses who are considered vulnerable as a result of their disability. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I wish briefly to support the amendment purely on the grounds that a number of people with a learning disability, and indeed those who have a mental illness, can easily be frightened by circumstances that will not worry the ordinary able-bodied person in the least. I am sure that the Minister when responding will say that people with disabilities have exactly the same rights under the Bill as anyone else. However, I hope that the courts will take into consideration the fact that sometimes these people are much more vulnerable.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. In the context of Clause 24 a witness may be eligible for special measures because he is young, or disabled, or is distressed or frightened about testifying. He may be eligible because he fits all three categories. He may need one measure for one purpose and a second for another.

1355
We would expect any application for special measures to specify in detail why a witness needs them and which special measures are needed. The court may accept the recommendations made. It may on the other hand wish to consider whether another measure, or combination of measures, may be more appropriate. It may indeed wish to offer a measure for which the applicant has not asked. We think it is important that an effort is made to provide no more and no less than the witness requires to give his best evidence.
Clause 24 provides for evidence to be given in private. It allows the court to ask anyone at the trial, apart from those such as the defendant who has to remain, to leave so that the witness can give best evidence in surroundings which are as quiet or as private or as considerate to the witness as possible. Some witnesses who are eligible for help under Clause 16 on the grounds of age, physical or mental impairment, or learning disability, may feel particularly inhibited by the difficulties of speaking in public. The noble Lord made that point. There is a range of measures available in the Bill to help them give best evidence.
The measures in Clause 24 will be open to such a witness or any witness who is eligible for special measures under Clause 17 if he is a witness in a sexual offence case or if the court thinks there are grounds for believing that someone other than the accused has intimidated, or is seeking to intimidate, the witness in relation to testifying. I refer to Clause 24(3) in this regard.
The provisions of Clause 18(1)(a) and (b) make it perfectly clear that the measures in Clause 24 are available to witnesses who are eligible for special measures under Clause 16 or Clause 17, or both. However, clearing a court should not be undertaken lightly. Wherever possible evidence should be given in public. The principle of open justice is an important one. Experience in overseas jurisdictions at this time is a useful reminder to us of that principle. We therefore believe that the measure should be used only in the limited, constrained circumstances set out in the Bill.
Lord Rix: My amendment was intended as a belt-and-braces measure to ensure that Clause 16 is, as it were, referred to from Clause 24. However, with the assurances of the Minister that Clause 16 is covered under Clause 24, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80A not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Video recorded evidence in chief]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 19, line 8, leave out first ("the witness") and insert ("a witness who is eligible by virtue of section 16(1)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the video recording of an interview of a witness should be available only when the witness fulfils the requirements of Clause 16(1); namely, that he
1356
or she is under the age of 17 at the time of the hearing, or he or she is affected by mental disorder or significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning. As drafted, the provision in Clause 26 would permit that a video recording of an interview of any witness for whom special measures had been granted could be admitted as evidence in chief.
I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when replying to an earlier amendment; namely, that children have different needs and different capabilities. There is some sense in having their initial interview shortly after they have lodged a complaint recorded and presented in court as the evidence in chief. Their memory is fresh. It further has the benefit that, in giving their full account of what has occurred and before cross-examination, they can do so in the court proceedings without having to be examined in chief. Under the present provisions, children are subjected to cross-examination by means of a live video link. We shall discuss later whether it is advantageous and fair that they should be cross-examined at an earlier stage and that their cross-examination should be filmed.
The provisions in Clause 26(1) relating to all witnesses tip the balance too far against the defendant. It is just the same as the witness coming into court, being provided with a statement of complaint that he or she made at the time and simply reading it out. That is something that we have always prevented in our courts. A contemporaneous statement may be used to refresh the memory, but not as the evidence in chief. If one permits this provision into the proceedings, one is in effect permitting any witness, so long as he or she comes within the provisions of Clause 17, to have that benefit.
Subsection (5)(a) opens the position even further. Although the witness must be called by the party tendering the interview in evidence, the special measures direction may provide that the witness's evidence on cross-examination be given otherwise than by a testimony in court. Again, that is an unacceptable widening of the situation. In trying to preserve the balance between the complainant and the defendant and ensuring that the trial is fair, open and just, these provisions take the matter too far.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The point of this amendment is to restrict the admissibility of video recorded evidence in chief, and therefore video recorded cross-examination, to videos of child witnesses and witnesses with mental disorder or physical and learning disabilities. We believe that that restriction is too harsh if we are genuinely engaged upon a search for the best evidence to be placed before a court.
The Bill offers a wider discretion to admit video evidence, and a stronger presumption that it should be admitted for children than is provided at present. The Bill as presently drafted will allow us to have evidence in chief and video recorded cross-examination arranged according to a timetable for a vulnerable witness who is outside the category that I specified and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated.

1357
The Bill as presently drafted will make it possible to admit video recorded evidence, both evidence in chief and on cross-examination, of witnesses for whom "audience" intimidation at trial is considered by the court to be a critical deterrent from giving the best evidence. It is this last provision that the amendment seeks to remove.
There is a case, if it is carefully and cautiously approached, for keeping nervous witnesses out of court and allowing them to give their evidence in a more relaxed way. We need to bear in mind that for witnesses intimidated by threats or fear of violence the law already allows the written statements of absent witnesses to be placed before the court, or for a witness to be granted absolute anonymity in court.
We do not want to go that far in this provision. We are simply offering the courts a discretion to make a direction that video recorded evidence of a witness should be admitted, and therefore be admissible, where the court is persuaded that the measure is needed to put important evidence before the court. We do not expect directions to be made simply to save the witness embarrassment or shame unless it is truly debilitating. To qualify for this provision, the witness must be so distressed or frightened that his or her ability to give evidence will be affected. I repeat: such witnesses can give evidence at present by way of written statement. I should have thought that that is a good deal less satisfactory than video evidence in chief and cross-examination. I should expect it to be difficult to convince a court to admit video recorded evidence in cases involving frightened witnesses rather than directing that another measure should be used. It should be difficult. It is not an open invitation for all witnesses to give their evidence on video.
The party calling the witness will have to consider whether the witness's evidence would make more impact when given live at trial, whether by live television link or in the courtroom itself. But where the court is capable of being convinced that the measure would offer proper benefits for the witness, and therefore the best evidence, the court—this is all that we say—should have the discretion to award it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If video recordings are to be admitted as evidence in chief, sometimes they will have been taken by police officers and others in the earlier stages of the investigation. I wonder, therefore, whether those police officers and others will need special training to make sure that interviews are conducted in accordance with the normal rules of court and not simply as an investigation might otherwise proceed. A police officer interviewing a witness in the course of an investigation will not normally follow all the intricacies that are required in court. If he has this provision in mind, he will need to do that. That will involve considerable training, and so on. I note from the Financial Memorandum to the Bill that it is expected to cost the Crown Prosecution Service some £0.7 million a year to admit video recorded evidence in chief. It may be that part of that amount is intended for training, at
1358
least so far as the CPS is concerned. However, the training will be more important for police officers and others in the circumstances I have described.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am heartened by some of the Minister's remarks. He said that it would be in exceptional circumstances that the interview of a witness would be admitted as evidence in chief. Nevertheless, I am not entirely satisfied with his reply. It seems to me that there is a great distinction between a child—a child can be identified as one who requires evidence to be given in this way in court and therefore an interview can be conducted right at the very beginning with all the proper safeguards in place—and any other adult competent witness. It may not be until much later that the question of the competence of that witness, or the quality of the evidence being affected by fear and distress, becomes an issue at all. If at that point, some months later, one then returns to an interview that the police conducted by way of a video recording, I should have thought that in the case of adults the safeguards referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will not be in place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall return to the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I should declare an interest, which is non-financial, as chairman of Scottish Aquaculture, which is a new organisation created to represent and promote Scotland's various aquacultural interests and species.
This very short Bill amends Section 7(4) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 in respect of several fisheries. The amendment would give Ministers, when granting a right of several fishery, powers to specify what implements may be used by fishermen in the area covered by a several order. The Bill, therefore, intends enabling Ministers to authorise, on a case by case basis, the use of non-damaging types of fishing gear, such as creels, in several fishery order areas by fishermen as well as by the grantee of the order. Currently, the 1967 Act is inflexible in this respect. This inflexibility prevents the recognition of a legitimate and compatible capture fishing interest. As a result, the fishing sector has felt compelled to be equally inflexible in its opposition to the granting of several orders.

1359
The Bill promises a win-win solution and therefore comes before the House with the full support of all interested parties. Indeed, this proposed solution has enjoyed support that is widespread and from both sectors of the fish industry since a public meeting in Inverness in May 1993. None will know this as well as my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who chaired the Inverness meeting as the then chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. That meeting unanimously identified the introduction of flexibility as the key to removing the current adversarial stand-off, thereby promoting the use of several orders for shellfish interests, while at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of creel fishermen.
Research by the Sea Fish Industry Authority has indicated that the use of seabed cultivation, protected by several orders, has the potential to increase significantly the production levels for species such as scallops. In addition, and of significance, there is a general recognition that the existence of a high density population of shellfish on a several order site is likely to enhance recruitment to the natural fisheries.
There is, therefore, a strong underpinning element of sustainability in this Bill's proposal. On the one hand, it will enhance both the fishing and shell-fishing opportunities available to some of our most remote and fragile rural communities, while, on the other hand, it will simultaneously promote conditions that enhance natural recruitment. The latter is good for conservation purposes.
The Bill, I reiterate, is the result of long and careful consideration by all interested parties. The wide consultation has attracted support and approval from all those parties. I should add that, if the Bill completes it passage through this House, its sponsor in another place will be the honourable Member for Orkney and Shetland, Mr. Jim Wallace.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I apologise for rushing into your Lordships' House and speaking in the gap. I have arrived just in time to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay yet again on introducing the Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. I have been fortunate enough to listen to him now and to hear again so many of the points that the Sea Fish Industry Authority proved were important the last time that we talked about this matter. The authority carried out a great deal of work on scallops to which my noble friend Lord Lindsay referred.
It is important to be vigilant and to keep up to date in all our fishing regulations as technology advances and as monitoring of our maritime environment shows an ever-changing picture as we approach 2002 and prorogation. On this occasion I can see nothing to stop the Bill receiving a fair wind in its passage through both Houses. Our British fishermen need all the help and support that they can get. As we have heard, the Bill will allay the fears of many in Scotland. I am happy to support it and I wish my noble friend every success.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on once again bringing this short Bill before your Lordships' House and for explaining it to us in his crisp and complete way. I confirm that we are delighted to give this legislation a fair wind, not simply because it is my honourable friend who will be sponsoring it in another place but also because, for all its shortness, it is an extremely important piece of legislation.
I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be dealing with the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench since he is the broker of Inverness through whom this important piece of legislation comes before us. He is to be congratulated on having brokered the agreement eight years ago, even if it has taken that length of time to arrive in Westminster.
I am tempted to ask your Lordships simply to refer to columns 88 and 89 of Hansard of 1st June because I do not think I can add anything to the copious amounts said on the Bill at that time. However, I was slightly chided by the noble Earl for having ended my remarks on that occasion with a rather feeble attempt at wit, since when a noble friend has pointed out to me what the proper quotation should be. It comes from Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor:
"The world's mine oyster, which I with sword ill open".
I hope a sword will not be needed for opening oysters on this occasion. I confirm that we are delighted to see this short Bill back in your Lordships' House.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it would be nice to say that I am delighted to rise to support my noble friend, but I wish that it was not necessary and that the Bill had proceeded through the House last year. On that occasion I was unable to come to the Second Reading debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. Perhaps I may, first, thank him for the kind things he said about me. The meeting in Inverness seems so long ago that I had almost forgotten about it. I have not been able to calculate how many scallops might have been brought to the market if we could have had action rather more quickly.
As my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, it is important that we pass the Bill, and I hope that the other place will do so as quickly as possible. The scallop population of the west coast of Scotland, in particular, has declined markedly over the years with two consequences. The first consequence is for the fishermen and the second is for those of us who enjoy scallops: they have become so expensive that it is difficult to enjoy them without thinking about the price.
When the Sea Fish Industry Authority, of which I was the chairman for three years, investigated the cultivation of scallops it was found that one of the ways in which it is done is by the use of lantern systems suspended in the water. But the trouble with that system is that the scallops attract all kinds of other creatures to live on their shells, with the net result that it is an inefficient method of cultivation. The same is true of other shellfish

1361
and cultivation methods, but to a much lesser extent, which is why we enjoy mussels and oysters at a very economic price in restaurants these days.
Scallops are proving quite difficult to cultivate with the so-called lantern system. The clever people who work for the Sea Fish Industry Authority, based largely at Ardtoe in the West Highlands, thought up the idea of taking tiny scallops, about the size of a small fingernail, and seeding them in a suitable place in a sea loch, where they would then grow in natural conditions, with clean shells, and so on, and could be harvested at some stage in the future. The side benefit to everyone from that would be that, if they were allowed to go through at least one reproduction cycle, they would help to repopulate the whole of the loch system.
I remember chairing a public meeting in, I believe, Kinlochewe with regard to carrying out such a project on Loch Ewe. We made little or no progress between the various "warring parties", although the warring party on one side was represented by only one person. Obviously, if one puts these shellfish down, one has to make sure that people do not go through the area trawling and thus digging up the small shellfish that have been put down. That is the whole point of the order. While the fishermen and their organisations were very keen to accept the principle, one of the problems was that creel fishermen, who would not damage the bottom of the loch, would also have to be excluded because we had to exclude everyone. That is the importance of this Bill. I hope that we can move ahead quickly with some of the projects in this regard in any area where this takes place. The only kind of fishing that needs to be prevented is that which damages the growing scallops and the sea bottom. Creel fishing or fishing for lobsters, crabs and prawns does not cause that damage and should be allowed to continue. I say that to show that I can still remember some of the things I learned about eight years ago.
I hope that this Bill will hasten its way to the statute book. More importantly, I hope that the industry will be able to take advantage of it and carry out some of the important work that could be done on the west coast of Scotland. It would bring employment to some of those areas for fishermen and fish farmers—and perhaps even manage to bring us slightly cheaper scallops at the restaurants.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for introducing this Bill again. It was extremely disappointing that it was objected to last June in another place—although, as noble Lords opposite know, it was through no fault of the Government. The Government's view of this amendment Bill has not changed: we welcome and support it. We recognise the important role several orders can play in the development of farmed shellfisheries and the protection afforded for stock within the designated areas. Only eight several orders have been granted in Scotland, and this has much to do with the concern expressed by the inshore fishermen, which this Bill seeks to address.
1362
The Government want to see greater use of several orders: they make sound economic sense; they offer employment opportunities for those living and working in rural and remote areas; and they can provide the basis for a sustainable shellfishery and a means whereby production can be increased to meet consumer demand for top quality shellfish.
At the present time, the granting of a several order under the 1967 Act provides protection for the shellfish stocks and the owner's rights within the designated area. All other fishing activities are prohibited, except where pelagic trawl nets or hook and line are used.
Herein lies the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as long ago as 1993, tried to resolve the sensitivities which had arisen between fishermen and shellfish growers over the use of several orders. Since then, improved guidelines have been introduced. Applicants must submit sound business plans for the operation of the several order site, which the Scottish Office monitors. If enacted, tonight's Bill will address the most important of these issues—namely, that of access of creel fishermen in a several order area. The 1967 Act places an unreasonable restriction on fishing within several order sites, and this fact is accepted by shellfish farming interests and other fishermen. All are agreed that greater flexibility is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who spoke earlier in the debate, helped to improve the scope and effectiveness of this legislation in 1997. It is good that she is still fighting the good fight for this Bill.
The noble Earl's amendment will provide that much needed flexibility by removing the current prohibition and giving Ministers discretion, on a case-by-case basis, over the types of fishing which may be permitted within a several order area.
As I have said before, I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the Bill. I am confident that the amendment, if enacted, will help to resolve some of the difficulties surrounding the granting of several orders in Scotland and should, as a result of greater up-take, stimulate shellfish farming production. Your Lordships gave their support before to this Bill. It has been gratifying tonight to hear the support expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and other noble Lords who have spoken. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the support shown for this Bill by all who have taken part in the debate. I am especially grateful that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, resorted to Shakespeare this time rather than his home-made wit, which was a feature of the earlier occasion when we discussed this Bill.
I am very appreciative that the Government continue to support this Bill so strongly and unambiguously. The Minister gave as good a summary as I could have hoped for of the very cogent reasons why this Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible.
I express special thanks to my two noble friends who have spoken. They have both had considerable experience of the industry, as was obvious from their contributions. My noble friend Lady Wilcox very kindly

1363
spoke when we considered this Bill once before; I am delighted that she was able to be in her place to do so again.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish left us in no doubt as to just how well he knows not only the specific problem that the Bill seeks to address, but many of the other features of this very important industry, which is of extraordinary value to many remote and rural West Highland communities. He was right to stress some of the extraordinary local difficulties that shellfish interests have provoked, and he reminded us of his experiences in Kinlochewe. He is also right that a Bill such as this will promote not only employment but a greater natural recruitment, which will be of immense value in a much wider sense.
I share his hopes that scallops may become a more accessible commodity in restaurants and elsewhere as a result of this impediment being removed from the interests of the shellfish industry.
I repeat that the badly needed solution is encapsulated in this amendment. It is wholly modern in the way it would work in promoting both employment and the long-term conservation interests of the natural fisheries. The amendment has enjoyed considerable support outside of the House; I welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for it inside. It is a true reflection of the consensus which lies beyond this House. On that basis, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.30 p.m.]

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 19, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In considering for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section or subsection (1) or (2) of section 27 whether any part of a recording should not be admitted under these sections, the court may refuse to allow evidence on which any party proposes to rely if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.").
The noble Viscount said: I apologise to the Committee for introducing this topic immediately after an admirable repast. This matter is difficult and complicated but I hasten to assure the Minister that I seek clarification and do not intend to press this collection of verbiage to a Division. Perhaps I may explain the problem that I identify with these provisions. Clause 26 deals with evidence in chief to be used in a wider variety of cases than originally provided for which
1364
was only in relation to children. When a video recording of evidence in chief is prepared it is done by means of an interview by people who have very special training. There is a great deal of guidance and manuals and so on are produced to enable this to be done according to a code.
Nevertheless, on occasions it goes wrong. A judge in the Crown Court where these matters mainly occur has a discretion whereby evidence that would otherwise be admissible is excluded on the grounds that it is unfair to allow it to be put before the jury. There are a number of different principles whereby evidence may be so excluded. That the principles should be clear is of enormous importance. It has been said this afternoon that it is not very easy to get convictions in some cases where there is abuse of vulnerable people. It is not for me to say whether or not people should be convicted, but the judiciary certainly should not be hampered by any lack of clarity as to what is its job. If there is an application by either party for evidence to be excluded on the ground that it is unfair the judge must apply the correct principles. If he or she does not do so and there is a conviction it will be overturned by the Court of Appeal because the principles on which the decision has been reached by the judge are wrong. The fundamental issue therefore is to get the principles right.
In common law a criminal judge always had the ability to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible on the grounds that it was unfair. In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act two provisions were added to the existing law: one was Section 78 in the terms that I have set out, broadly speaking, in my amendment; the other was Section 82(3) which preserved in so far as it was still required—sometimes it was—the old common law position. That was in 1984. On the basis of Section 78 a very great deal of judicial guidance has been built up in cases before the Court of Appeal. One can refer to quite a large book if this matter arises. All of these cases are individual and one cannot discern a direct precedent but one has the principles and seeks to get the matter right.
When the idea of the video recording of testimony by child witnesses was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 a new set of provisions was grafted on to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It took the form of a number of amendments to Section 32 of that Act: the addition of Section 32A and a number of other matters. Section 32A is to be repealed by Schedule 4, as one sees from the top of page 60, as is a good deal of Section 32.
When I raised this matter on Second Reading, however, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that I should take comfort from the fact that in Clause 26 of the Bill the test as to a judge's exercise of discretion on admissibility was the same as that found in Section 32A(4), as it is now, of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Broadly speaking, that is true. In Clause 26 one finds a very similar provision in subsections (2) and (3).
There are, however, very substantial differences. In Section 32A(3) of the 1988 Act, as inserted in 1991, the power to exclude evidence was made subject to the exercise of any power of the court to exclude evidence

1365
which would otherwise be admissible. In other words, as I read it, it was subject to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act referred to earlier. There is no repetition of that saving in Clause 26 of the Bill.
Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Clause 26 of the Bill, together with the repeal provisions, effectively takes the place of Section 32A of the 1988 Act as inserted in 1991. If it is amended so as to accord with the provisions of the 1991 Act that may be adequate for the provision of evidence in chief. Unfortunately, nothing has been provided by way of principles for the exercise of a judge's discretion in relation to evidence that may be video-recorded under Clause 27. There is no cross-reference between Clause 26(2) and (3) and the provisions for cross-examination and re-examination to be video-recorded and presented to the court under Clause 27.
As the position now stands—I am aware that there are Members of the Committee who are extremely familiar with the situation and will put me right if I am wrong—even with child witnesses there may be a contest as to the admissibility of some parts of the video-recorded evidence in chief. For instance, during one of the breaks which are allowed to take place in the course of the video recording the child may go out, and the other party (usually the defence) says that during that period the child was coached. The child comes back, continues the video recordings and produces all the necessary information and evidence about the offence with which the court is concerned. There is objection about what happened during the gap and one has to hear evidence about it.
That situation will continue to occur. The Bill has simplified the tests for the Crown Court judge. It has made them different from those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I do not know what they are supposed to be. However, there is now the proposition that cross-examination and re-examination should be on video as well, and a further problem arises. There is no reference in the Bill about the principles for admissibility of evidence and fairness. In the course of cross-examination there is often a pause because the attention span of the witness may be brief. There has to be a short adjournment. There is an allegation that the witness was coached. As a result there may be a challenge as to the admissibility of what happened thereafter.
Furthermore, there is provision in Clause 27(5) and (6) for the recall of a witness in certain circumstances even after cross-examination and re-examination. It can occur only on the basis that some new material has come to the notice of the defence, and it therefore wishes to recall that witness. At that moment—I speculate because no one knows how the provision will work—some part of the pre-recorded video of the cross-examination may come under challenge. Some additional evidence may throw doubt upon the safety of allowing the material to go before the jury. Nothing in the Bill states the principles which the judge has to apply.
As I read the Bill, the judge has to apply to examination in chief the principles derived from Clause 26 alone without paying attention to Sections 78 or 82(3) of the
1366
Police and Criminal Evidence Act. For the purpose of admissibility of cross-examination or re-examination there is no guide. Presumably one goes back to the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If that is so, there is a different test. The words are different as regards the principles that the judge has to take into account now and those which will apply to examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination in the future.
I seriously doubt that I have the position right. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would present a Bill to Parliament which does not clarify that situation. The amendment merely reproduces the formula in Section 78 in the hope that we might have a constant provision throughout the jurisdiction. In the hope that we shall have an explanation of how the provision is to work, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount. I cannot attempt to match his analysis of the interplay between Sections 26 and 27. However, when admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial is being considered by a judge it is clearly desirable that he applies one test. For him to have to turn from one statutory provision to another in order to determine the correct test is unacceptable and confusing. If there is to be a different test, it is a matter that will trouble the Court of Appeal. We are familiar with the test set out in the noble Viscount's amendment from Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is frequently before the court and frequently in the minds of judges. It is obviously the correct test. I invite the comments of the Minister on the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As currently drafted, Clause 26(3) of the Bill is based on the test for admissibility of video evidence which already is to be found, as the noble Viscount correctly points out, in Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That test required the judge to balance the possibility of the jury being prejudiced against the defendant by a part of the recording with the desirability of showing the whole recording intact so that there is in fact a complete picture of the witness's evidence.
It was developed for the specific circumstance of video recordings. The court might consider, for instance, that the recording shows an exchange between questioner and witness which the rules of evidence would exclude but which could be edited out without damage to the rest of the recording being used in evidence. Alternatively, the court might prefer—indeed, the defence might wish it—to allow the whole recording to be shown and the jury warned that it should have regard to the prejudicial nature of the question and the consequential answer.
Section 78 of PACE is intended for evidence in general. It is not adapted to the specific question of video-recorded evidence. I am not sure that the noble Viscount's amendment explicitly provides for the possibility of part of the recording being excluded while the rest was admitted.

1367
I do not think that the test will be confusing for judges. It is substantially the same as is already used under Section 32A of the 1988 Act. The amendment would also extend the reach of the new subsection (3) to the editing of video-recorded cross-examination. We need to remember that the cross-examination will have been controlled by a judge with all the parties to the case present. We believe that anything prejudicial to the defendant should have been stopped at the time of that hearing. However, subsection (4) of Clause 27 allows a video recording of a cross-examination to be excluded after it has been made if the rules of court or the direction allowing the cross-examination have not been complied with. We think that they are sufficient safeguards.
I turn to Section 78 and Section 82(3) of PACE since both sections were mentioned by the noble Viscount. Section 82(3) of PACE preserves the common law power of the court to exclude any evidence at its discretion. Neither that nor Section 78 of PACE overrides Section 26(3), which is simply specific additional provision on the admissibility of video evidence under Section 26. On the basis of the advice I have received, it seems to me that Section 78 continues as a general provision enabling the courts to refuse to allow any evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely, subject to the question—it is what Section 78 is supposed to preserve—of the overall fairness of the proceedings.
Section 78 applies to all evidence, as we can see from the case of R v. Mason, Vol. 86 Criminal Appeal Reports. It is not limited, as used to be thought, to the admissibility of confessions. There is no reason to think that Section 78 does not apply to prosecution evidence under Clause 26. I do not believe therefore that the amendment is necessary as regards prosecution evidence.
We are dealing with new bases of admissibility of types of evidence because we are applying it further to what has been known in the past.
I know that the noble Viscount has gone to a good deal of trouble in relating Clauses 26 and 27, to Sections 78 and 82(3) of PACE and the various possible differences of nuance that there might be to the judicial approach. Therefore, whether or not the noble Viscount intends to press the amendment—he indicated that he was probing—I wish to give a certain amount of thought to the inter-relationship between Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill with Sections 78 and 82(3) of PACE. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount that one wants to put one's mind to these inter-relationships and to consider, and reconsider for my part, whether there may be some fudging of the different criteria that ought to be applied under the respective clauses. I undertake to do that. I shall write to the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and those Members of Committee who have shown an interest. I shall also put a copy of my reply in the Library.
Not for the first time, the issues raised by the noble Viscount are certainly well worthy of further consideration and I undertake to give them that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise at once for intruding in such an erudite debate. As a layman in these matters, what concerns me is whether it would be
1368
possible for the Minister to put on one sheet of paper the considerations which the judge will have to take into account in deciding whether to admit video recorded evidence in chief in a case such as this. If that is difficult to do—judging by the discussion we have just had it is quite difficult—it seems to me that it would be very difficult for police officers and other people involved in interviewing child witnesses and others in the course of an investigation to get it right in a manner which will stand up in court. It is not only learned judges and counsel who will have to be able to follow the rules, whatever they are in the end, but other people with much less expertise, who will need to be able to follow and obey the rules in order to be successful in producing evidence in chief which can be used and lead to the correct decision in the court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may respond quite briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. As the noble Viscount pointed out, we have had the video recording of interviews with children for almost 10 years. As he rightly pointed out, there is a memorandum of good practice and the training of police officers in the taking of statements. I understand that the noble Viscount's question is not really directed at the obtaining of material but dealing with it in its judicial context either in the magistrates' court, or as he rightly said, more likely in the Crown Court.
That is the question to which his observations and interventions have been addressed and on which I have focused my mind. It may be that at the end of the day I shall simply come back and say that I believe Clause 26(3) and the present Clause 27 are sufficient. But I believe that he has raised perfectly legitimate queries about the inter-relationship between at least four clauses. I undertake to think more carefully about it, even if I come to the same conclusion, and to write appropriately as I promised.
Lord Rix: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask two questions. In the giving of evidence children are mentioned all the time. I presume that the safeguards in taking evidence apply equally as much to people with a learning disability. The second question may be rather naïve. If the editing of evidence is allowed, who is going to be present from the court to ensure that it is conducted in a true and proper manner?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I want to be as helpful as I can. The reason I mentioned training over the past 10 years and the memorandum of good practice, is that it has been in the context of children's evidence. But the lessons we have learnt from that good practice will be applied to those who have a disability. As regards editing, that takes place in a court context because the judge makes a ruling that certain questions and answers should not be allowed. That is one stage. The taking of cross-examination is subject to judicial control as well. So if one means editing physically, that can be done by a direction from the judge in the Crown Court context, but if one means editing in the form of,

1369
"You must not answer that question", which is a slightly broader use of editing, that is judicial control of the cross-examination itself.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate, particularly if they understood what I was trying to say because it is not very easy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, very much for his offer to look at this matter again.
I wish to make three brief points. If he is right that Clause 26 is to be governed overall by the tests and principles in Sections 78 and 82(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, why does not the clause contain the same saving that is in the section which includes the proviso of being subject to the exercise of any power of the court to exclude evidence which is otherwise admissible? That is the cross-reference in that provision to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If the Minister is right in that those provisions override, why is it not in the Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was quite right in saying that the video-recording of cross-examination and re-examination of any witness will be of a wider range than just children. There is no real safeguard in Clause 27(4) because the rules of court for these purposes, if they are like the rules that we have had before, simply deal with the number of days to transpire before the second stage is taken. The directions will have been given before the event and are unlikely to be the cause of the trouble. I believe the noble Lord will understand that the whole process involved in Clause 27 is organic, it is something added to the law and system that we have now. There is the ability to re-open the cross-examination, as I have mentioned previously.
None of this is foreseeable. The way in which challenges as to admissibility are going to occur is unknown at the moment. Without any clear guidelines in the Bill itself, I doubt whether it will be easy for judges to get it right. Therefore, I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord will look at this again. I am sure that he will not come to it with any preconceptions that the Bill must be right. I am asking for absolute clarity so that in dealing with these matters the judiciary does not make a mistake on its part. Whatever else may go wrong with the trial, at least the judiciary will have clear guidance about what it is to do and the principles it has to apply. I welcome what the Minister has said. I look forward to his letter and a further discussion with him when I have received it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Video recorded cross-examination or re-examination]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 20, line 40, after ("both)") insert ("who is (or are) to have conduct of the trial or appeal").
The noble Viscount said: In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said a few moments ago, I suspect that this amendment is not strictly necessary. In
1370
either the Explanatory Notes or Speaking Up For Justice there is a suggestion that cross-examination and re-examination on video of witnesses who are to be given the protection of special measures should not necessarily be controlled by the magistrate or the judge. That is a disastrous suggestion to make. If there is one thing that has been learnt from the experience of video recorded evidence in chief and the cross-examination of a child witness—which is all that we have had so far—on the live link, it is that there has to be very close control indeed.
There is the inevitable tendency for cross-examining counsel to cover a point for longer than is necessary. He may not remember that a child's attention span is not very long. He may not allow time for a pause, certainly not for coaching but so that the child may have a short break in the proceedings for reflection. There are many reasons why it is necessary to have judicial control over the cross-examination and re-examination. Those who have taken part in trials will know that that is right and if properly exercised, it enhances the quality of evidence which witnesses give.
Therefore, I thought it worthwhile to make sure that the policy indicated in whichever of those documents it was, is not to be put into practice when the Bill comes into force. I seek an assurance from the noble Lord that that will not be the case.
That will be particularly important if there is a risk that cross-examination may continue by way of a recall under Clause 27. It must be right the first time because the defence will not have another opportunity unless it has new material of which it could not reasonably have had knowledge at the time. Therefore, close judicial control over those proceedings is necessary. I look forward to an assurance from the noble Lord that that is exactly what is intended. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I noticed an interesting difference between this provision—particularly if it were to be amended in the way suggested by the noble Viscount—and the position in Scotland. In Scotland, as I read it, if there is to be separate giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses, including children, the evidence is taken by a legally qualified commissioner appointed by the court and acting for the court. I wonder whether the Home Office has considered that possibility for England and Wales or whether it did not regard it as working very satisfactorily in Scotland. However, I have no real evidence to suggest that it is anything other than satisfactory in its operation North of the Border.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this issue. I assure him that we should absolutely prefer the same judge or justices who has or have heard an application for special measures as part of a pre-trial hearing to control interim proceedings such as the video-recorded cross-examination; and who would then take the case at trial. I am quite certain that the Court Service, the judiciary and the magistracy will make every effort to ensure that that is so.

1371
As the noble Viscount pointed out, that provides consistency for parties and the witness. Explanations to the jury in due course about the video-recorded evidence may well be fuller, more explanatory and, perhaps, better informed if the same person or persons control proceedings throughout. For a vulnerable witness, a familiar face is important.
But we must recognise that it will not always be practicable if we are to avoid unnecessary delay. Unnecessary delay is a significant feature of the damage that is done to children or other vulnerable witnesses. Therefore, I am happy to give that indication as firmly as I may to the noble Viscount.
I do not believe that such an absolute rule as he proposes is necessarily in the interests of justice for the defendant. Delay is often a blemish from the defendant's point of view too. The identity of the judge or justices who control the trial ultimately is perhaps not as important, but we wish to have continuity as far as we can possibly attain it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked me about taking evidence on commission. I had jotted down something about that earlier. There are sometimes difficulties about taking evidence on commission. Sometimes, the commissioner has not the authority to rule out inadmissible material. In the circumstances of our new experience, it is probably better to have the evidence controlled judicially for all the reasons which the noble Viscount gave. I am happy to give that clear indication—I do not believe I could have made it plainer—in response to the noble Viscount's question.
Viscount Colville of Culross: The noble Lord has made it very clear. It is quite right that it would not be possible to statutorily require the same judge or justices necessarily to sit at all stages. Nevertheless, the Minister has given the principle which I am sure will now be followed. He has forsworn what was in that previous document. I am extremely happy with the situation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Colville of Culross: At this stage, I wish to refer to the practicality and usefulness of Clause 27. It may be that other Members of the Committee will be able to make better contributions about this matter. However, we should examine the issue.
I am wholly in favour of the video recording of cross-examination and re-examination, particularly if there are not to be later recalls when the defence has eventually decided exactly what it is that it wishes to present to the court.
However, I wish to make certain that the introduction of that provision on to the statute book does not raise false hopes. I said at Second Reading—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has confirmed it—that since the Pigot Report suggested the whole of this procedure, there has been the intervention of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which sets out a statutory progression of primary disclosure,
1372
defence statement and secondary disclosure leading to the preparations for the trial. That is an admirable arrangement but it takes time.
Time is not on the side of obtaining real and reliable evidence from the kind of people for whom special measures are required. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, will know better than I about some of the people with various other disabilities. But I know that the memory of children is very short. Three may be a delay of six to nine months between the time when the alleged offence occurred and the time when the children are asked questions about it, having first, in rather unfamiliar circumstances, seen the video recording of their own evidence-in-chief. They are then asked questions about it. They have great difficulty remembering what happened and being able to explain, in answer to questions, what occurred. They take refuge in saying that the incident happened a long time ago and they have forgotten. Consequently, their evidence is not as reliable or helpful as it should be to the jury or anyone else.
I am concerned about the timetable and the facilities and my Amendment No. 84 is relevant to that. My Amendment No. 135 repeals the special provision about facilities for video recordings for petty sessional divisions. If no facility is available in a magistrates' courts area another facility can be used somewhere else. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned that earlier, saying that there are sufficient venues for video recordings for all these proceedings. If that is the case, why repeal Section 32 which makes specific provision for that?
Whether or not there are sufficient venues, what is the timetable to be? How is justice to be improved by the provisions in Clause 27? I would guess that the defence would never be ready to cross-examine, certainly not without the risk of a further recall of the witness later on, until all the secondary disclosures have been made, the defence witnesses collected, statements taken by the defence solicitor and all that has been considered by defence counsel. Unless there is a speeding up of the process over and above what happens in the Crown Courts—certainly in my experience, and mine was one of the pilot courts in the video-recording process—children and other witnesses under a disability will be cross-examined on video months and months after the event. I seriously doubt whether that will be an improvement on the current situation in which they are cross-examined in court on the video-link, not subject to further recall as the Bill provides, their evidence standing or falling as they come across on the day.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will say that something special is to be done about such a case because the essence is speed. If speed is not introduced into the proceedings, I fear that all the admirable aspirations set out in Clause 27 will come to nothing and that hopes will be falsely raised and dashed when it is seen not to work. I look forward to his explanation of what is to be done to make the proposal effective and quick and being told that we shall take the opportunity of getting the evidence before the jury on videotape when the witness can remember what happened.
Baroness Mallalieu: Although I do not support any attempt to take Clause 27 out of the Bill, I express concerns about its practical effect. The ideal is to have a cross-examination following directly on from the evidence-in-chief and as near as possible to the time of the first complaint. The reality is that it will be a slow process to amass the necessary material for cross-examination, which in many cases may involve additional applications to the court for disclosure. In cases involving children, particularly those who have a relationship with local care authorities, it is not unusual for there to be applications for the disclosure of social services records, which often do not become available until shortly before trial.
I am troubled that attempts may be made to use the provision as a norm, or at any rate regularly, when at later stages it will be impossible for a judge to refuse an application to recall the child for further cross-examination because material has come to light which could not have been in the hands of the defence earlier. The end result may be that the child undergoes two periods of cross-examination rather than one. I would like the Minister to indicate whether he sees the provisions as being "the norm" or whether they will apply only in relatively exceptional circumstances where all the material is available and no further material is anticipated to be forthcoming.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: From a lay person's point of view, all these complications that will prolong the process are not particularly easy to understand, but the point is that for a child this is absolutely impossible. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children tells us that now the average length of time for a trial involving cases such as this is 10 months. That is the average, and for many it is longer. They say that it looks as though under this new process things will get worse. I think the noble Viscount has suggested that.
Childline have written to me to say that they get much involved with children in this kind of thing and that speed is of the essence in these cases. They are appalled at the thought of a long process. It just will not work, and even if it is the exception, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested it might be, what about those children who are the exceptions? I do not think it will do. Even if it means going back to the drawing board on this matter, I think we should do so, because anyone who understands anything about children will realise that they will not be able to give proper evidence. I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, is going to look at this very hard indeed.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: At the risk of appearing to be redundant, I would like to say that all this which applies to children also applies to people with a learning disability when it comes to the recall of evidence of actual facts of a case.
Lord Warner: I believe that the noble Viscount is right. Time is of the essence in relation to children's memories and the recall of events. I think we need to just remember the linkages between Clause 27 and Clause 21. There is in fact very little point, I would
1374
suggest, in making it easier for the video-taping of evidence in chief to be used in cases, particularly of sexual abuse of children, if we do not then follow through in terms of cross-examination and re-examination, using the same video-taping. If we do not follow through, we end up with the situation we have had over the last few years in the courts, with the absence of this facility to use video-taping being a real deterrent to the successful prosecution of people who have abused children.
If we only go through part of the process in which we actually have evidence in chief video-taped but we cannot video-tape the cross-examination and re-examination, all we shall end up with is a situation in which there is a real deterrent to prosecution because children will not come forward. It seems to me that we have to re-examine the way in which the court processes are working and in these particular cases we have to use our best endeavours to speed up the process and recognise the circumstances of the children involved in these cases.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: There seem to be two matters here. The first is the one which caused me to add my name to that of the noble Viscount so as to cause a debate on the Question that Clause 27 stand part. I refer to the difficulty of having the cross-examination outside the trial—in some cases well outside the trial in point of time, it seems—when the defence will not really be in a proper position to cross-examine as it would be by the time of the trial, having much more information, much more disclosure and all the rest of it.
It seems to me that it is extremely difficult to have a cross-examination taking place a long time before the trial takes place. This point was made to me by the Law Society and others. But that runs across the point which has also been raised in this most interesting little debate about the question of time that elapses between the offence and its coming to court. Like my noble friend, I have seen the suggestion that at the moment in child witness cases there is an average of 10 months—I repeat, an average—so presumably in some cases it must be quite a lot longer.
It has been my observation that one's appreciation of any span of time is actually not absolute as life proceeds, but it is a function of one's age. When you are 10 one year is 10 per cent. but when you are 60, 10 per cent. is six years. In a sense, the youngster who looks forward to Christmas at any point in the year sees it as being much further away than one does at 60, when it seems that Christmases come round very quickly one after the other. That is just an indication of the difficulties of taking evidence from children 10 months, let alone much more, afterwards.
That runs counter to the problems of having the cross-examination outside the trial. I do not see how to resolve those problems. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that to separate the evidence-in-chief from cross-examination is also very difficult and could make one or the other less valid. It could actually make the evidence-in-chief less valid if the cross-examination is a long time after it; one should try and keep them together. The only answer is to speed

1375
up the trials. I know that a great deal of effort has gone into trying to speed up trials in recent years and, though there has been some beneficial effect, there is still considerable delay. So the Government are struggling with very great dilemmas on behalf of us all.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is impossible for cross-examination to follow immediately after the interview under Section 26. It should be borne in mind that Section 26 deals with the provision,
"for a video recording of an interview of the witness to be admitted as evidence in chief".
It would be impossible to cross-examine any such witness without taking instructions. That requires that the video recording be made available to the defence and that time be provided for a proper conference or consultation to take place before the arrangements can be made for the cross-examination and re-examination of the witness to happen.

The Committee should not be left with the impression that it is possible to have a witness interviewed and on the same day for that witness to be cross-examined by counsel in full possession of his instructions. If that were to happen, if that is the intention of these provisions, it is almost inevitable that at a later stage the witness would be recalled to give evidence and subject himself or herself to further cross-examination.
A further point that has to be made is this: the Committee has addressed these provisions almost as though they were concerned solely with the sexual abuse of children. That is not the case. These are broad and wide provisions. I have not pressed my amendment to Clause 26(1) to confine "the witness" to a witness as described in Section 16(1); namely, a witness under the age of 17 or subject to some disability. Therefore these provisions apply to any witness where the court is satisfied that the quality of that witness's evidence is likely to be diminished by the reason of fear or distress. That can be any adult witness and is not confined to sexual abuse; it can extend to any criminal proceedings.
For example, I had the experience of dealing with a murder case in which the deceased was subject to a severe disability, as was the defendant and around half a dozen of the witnesses; they were all subject to disability. These provisions, therefore, could apply in a murder case. And one can easily imagine a fraud case where the critical and crucial witness was in such fear and distress of what might happen to him or her when the matter comes to the attention of those further up the chain of criminality that he or she might come within these provisions. The provisions could therefore apply to a fraud case.
It is virtually impossible to cross-examine a critical witness in a fraud case without primary and secondary disclosure taking place. So let us not confine ourselves to the sexual abuse of children in considering how broad these provisions are. I have attempted to confine them to children and those who are disabled but that has not so far been successful. Therefore one has to look at the implications on a much wider basis.
Lord Swinfen: I am not experienced in these matters but I wonder whether the Minister can instruct me. Am
1376
I right in thinking that much of the evidence that will be given by a child—and perhaps others—will be taken by the police during their investigations, even before a defendant has been found, and that those interviews will be used in court as evidence? In those circumstances, there will have been no chance for the defendant's counsel even to have been appointed, so that evidence could not be questioned in the very early stages. It could be months before a defending counsel is appointed. As the evidence has to be fresh in a child's mind to ensure that it is correct, it is taken in the course of police inquiries before a court case is even contemplated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is quite right: as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly reminded us, Clause 27 refers to video-recordings of interviews of witnesses. If the accused is not apprehended for some time, in the nature of things, there cannot be a virtually contemporaneous cross-examination. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, again rightly pointed out, you cannot cross-examine properly and professionally until you have instructions and, as the noble Viscount again rightly pointed out, you cannot cross-examine efficiently and professionally until you have had disclosure in some cases.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his place. When I say, "What about this, that or the other?", he frequently chides me with the doctrine of unripe time. I have always been amused by that. Your Lordships are now saying, "In some cases it may be difficult, so let us, therefore, do nothing in any circumstance where it might be of assistance to a child or a witness under disability".
Unless we start, we shall get nowhere. Of course, there will be some difficulties. Of course, the inertia of the judicial machine will continue. Apparently, to the outside observer, it regards itself as more important than those fundamentally concerned with it; namely, the complainants, the public and the defendants. I am not pretending—I never have—that this Bill provides a perfect remedy in every circumstance, but there are many cases where endless disclosure, primary and secondary, is not required. There are many cases in which disclosure is not fundamentally important. In those cases, which may be a minority—nevertheless, an important minority—after all this time we ought to begin to get on with the protection of victims in our system, whether they are complainant witnesses, child witnesses, witnesses under disability or simply the terrorised witnesses. I remind your Lordships yet again that there is already a provision for the admissibility in evidence, without cross-examination in some circumstances, of statements made by those who are too terrorised or too afraid to come to court.
The noble Viscount is quite right in his historical reminder. The measures are based on a recommendation made by the late Judge Pigot in his advisory group on video evidence, which was published a long time ago—in 1989. He made the general suggestions which formed the basis of our approach. As the noble Viscount said, with his enormous experience of the court system, it is perfectly true that the Pigot recommendations

1377
significantly predated the disclosure provisions introduced in April 1997 by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
In many cases—I have never pretended differently—the defence is unlikely to be ready or willing to cross-examine witnesses until shortly before a trial begins. It would be wrong for any procedure or any judge to attempt, coercively, to interfere. I stress the words, "until shortly before a trial begins". If the average is 10 months—that means that some cases take longer than 10 months—that is a standing, continuing reproach to our judicial system. There is no reason why the judicial system should not be taken firmly by the neck and shaken. I do not mean the judges; I mean the whole system which, for far too long, has been polluted by interference on a delaying basis by those who are well versed in it. I speak as a game-keeper who was formerly a poacher, but now retired.
If we try, we can make improvements. They will not be 100 per cent. appropriate for every child complainant, every child witness or every adult who may be under a disability. There are two alternatives: either we begin with this enormous effort of will and determination or we do nothing. I am too young to want to do nothing.
As the noble Viscount said, it is perfectly true that this will be an inappropriate help in many cases, but it will be better than what we offer at present. It will be a start to doing away with uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was quite right; indeed, it entirely coincides with my experience. Nine months or 10 months is a lifetime to a child. What is even worse is the constant nagging, on going to bed every night, of not knowing whether or not they will have to give evidence and when the court date will be. At least certainty is better than that; we owe it to people. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is quite right to say that we must not confine ourselves to children because many other people have the oppressive fears that we have colluded in for far too long.
There are some cases where we could get the video recording of evidence in chief fairly closely followed by cross-examination. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, that would be very difficult in fraud cases; indeed, it could also be difficult in some murder cases. But in quite a number of other cases it would be perfectly straightforward.
Given the will and determination that noble Lords have shown they abundantly share in the context of the Crime and Disorder Bill, we must bend our minds and wills to the training of those who participate in the system. It can be made to work. After all, the listing system is quasi-judicial, but it is not beyond our wit, intelligence and, perhaps more importantly, imagination to list cases in an appropriate way to ensure, as criminal justice is now beginning to do, that priority cases get true priority. There is no difficulty in that respect, except the lack of will and determination.
Therefore, we should start to manage cases better. After all, I am addressing the Committee in the context of the Woolf reforms, where the noble and learned Lord's theory and philosophic approach is that judges
1378
should manage cases—what an extraordinary proposition! The public interest in the speedy adjudication and determination of all disputes, whether criminal or civil, is properly regarded as part of the public's interest. They are not private proceedings between the prosecution and the defence; they are wholly involved morally, politically and socially with the public interest.
I recognise that this is not a perfect solution, because there will be none. However, it is an improved solution. I am saying that we must make a start. We must train practitioners and make them see that it is a professional obligation. We must encourage the judicial system about listing and we must also encourage judges consistently to manage the criminal cases that are in their court centres. There is no one—be it the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls in a civil context, the Lord Chancellor, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General—who does not believe that these are coincident interests to which we can work towards.
I am not going to promise that the world, presently flat, will become round as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I know that not to be true. However, we can and must make a start. If we can give certainty to those witnesses who are vulnerable—a decent regard for their vulnerability is all that we are pressing for—we can make a start. There will be difficulties. There will be those who will not see that any reform can conceivably be of any advantage. There will also be those who will say that when they started at the Bar, when they first became solicitors or when they first learned to read and write, things were different. Of course things were different then; but, fortunately, they will not remain the same.
As I said, there will be difficulties. However, I believe we can manage them in the way that we are managing the Narey experiments. We can have designated judges, as, indeed, we have designated judges to try rape cases. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is present this evening. If I may say so without presumption, one of the great ornaments of his tenancy of the Woolsack was that the Children Act was brought into play. For virtually the first time it was a necessary requirement—which he insisted upon—that judges who tried these extremely difficult cases should not be allowed to try them without being designated, and they could not be designated without being trained. We do not necessarily need statute for these things. What we need is the efficient management of a system which creaks.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister sits down, he was good enough to refer to me in the context of the doctrine of unripe time. Does he accept that neither the doctrine of unripe time, nor the slippery slope, nor the argument that the existing machinery works well, nor the argument of the wedge, or any of the other arguments for doing nothing apply in my opinion to this Bill, to this provision or to the other provisions that we shall discuss? In my view the doctrine of unripe time has no application because this should have been done 10 years ago. Judges from other

1379
countries, from the Continent and the rest of the Commonwealth, look with amazement at the fact that we have not done it before.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Many judges here look at this not only with amazement but with shame.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord makes my case for me that this clause is too widely drafted. He says that we should start. I agree with that as I do not wish to stand still. But let us also prioritise. As this Bill is drafted at present, the provisions could be used, for example, for supergrasses who would certainly be in fear and who would certainly have their evidence qualified by that fear. That is not the kind of case we want to start with. Let us go back to the provisions of Clause 16(1) and look at the people who are declared eligible for assistance in that subsection; namely, children and those suffering from a disability. Let us start with them. As experience of the use of video recording expands, we can move to other areas and to other defendants.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall reply briefly. In some supergrass cases the allegations are of serial murder and torture. I decline to accept the proposition that they are of less public interest and importance.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Before the noble Lord completes his response can he say whether it is necessary that the special measures direction, which permits the examination-in-chief to be on video, need be the same as permits that for the cross-examination; in other words, may it not be desirable to allow for the possibility that as the procedure develops it may appear practicable—although it did not earlier—to have the cross-examination on video? It appears that the decision with regard to the cross-examination has to be made at the same time as the decision with regard to the examination-in-chief, if I have understood the position correctly. I am, of course, subject to correction. I thank the noble Lord for what he said about me earlier. That was kind of him.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have made those remarks on many public occasions for the modest reason that I believe the reforms of the Children Act were correct. I shall consider the noble and learned Lord's question. My immediate impression is that a direction as to special measures can be capable of being altered as circumstances change. If I am wrong about that, I shall of course write to the noble and learned Lord. Even if I am correct, I shall write to confirm that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Assuming that that cannot be done in terms of the Bill, it would appear to me—from what I have heard so far—desirable that it should be done. In any event, if that is not the case, it may be wise to change the position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall give that most careful attention, as always.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
TIME LIMITS FOR VIDEO RECORDED EVIDENCE CASES
(" . Where a court makes a special measures direction under section 26 or 27, it may, notwithstanding any time limits provided by regulations under section 12 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, give and enforce such time limits as it thinks lit for the expeditious bringing to trial of the accused.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment gives me an opportunity to comment briefly on the previous debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the method whereby the special directions will be given. He is right in saying that there should be a provision enabling that to be done in separate stages according to what happens in a particular case.
What happens in existing trial cases is this. When the police decide that there is a case to be investigated, they take a statement from the child. It will in future be from a much wider selection of witnesses. It is not until much later, when the matter comes up for discussion—for instance, under Section 32A of the 1988 Act—that it has to be decided, usually by, the Crown Court, whether that statement will be admissible as part of the evidence in chief of the witness. That is the first time that the matter comes before the court, although the material has already been prepared—it is on tape by that time, and has been for a little while.
The point of this amendment is to take the noble Lord, Lord Williams—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lester—up on the whole issue of shaking everyone up and getting these cases hurried up. I could not resist drafting this clause. The Bill already includes (in Clause 22) screens, which we use now; evidence by live link (under Clause 23), which we use now; evidence given in private (under Clause 24) which we do now; and removal of wigs and gowns (under Clause 25) which we do now. I thought, therefore, that it would be following this very suitable trend if I tabled a new clause to allow judges to take charge of a case.
At Second Reading I made some suggestions as to how matters could be speeded up. So far as concerns the judiciary, they can certainly do that once the matter comes to the Crown Court. What they cannot control are the events that precede that stage. I suggested at Second Reading that when the CPS, or whoever it will be under the Access to Justice Bill, finds a case where a witness is likely to give evidence on video and will possibly have to be cross-examined, it should be given priority. The public defender service, or whatever that will be under the Access to Justice Bill, should make certain that the defence is alerted to the priority of the case, and that the magistrates are alerted so that the matter is given priority in the magistrates' court for committal purposes. Then, when the case comes to the Crown Court, of course the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right: the listing system is a judicial one and something can be done about it. But nothing at all can be done about it until the matter arrives in the hands of the judicial system in the Crown Court. The magistrates have their own judicial system. They can do it if they are given the necessary encouragement. I have therefore tabled a proposal that can be done anyway. That is the trend in

1381
this Bill—to make statutory what everyone can do anyway. The only point I have added is that the time limits could be enforced. That we can do anyway, by means of wasted costs orders. If this provision were written into the Bill it might add a little punch to the views that are being expressed on all sides of the Committee.
The noble Lord is not expected to accept this amendment. I merely point out to him that it is not just the listing and judicial system that is involved; it is the entire scope of the criminal proceedings. All those involved in them must have a little spur to push them along faster than they go at present. One of the spurs is that the Crown Court should give the necessary directions.
When this matter was discussed in 1991, the noble Lord's predecessor as Minister of State, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rejected this whole approach. He said that it was not practicable. I am glad that the Government and the Home Office have changed their mind.
I remember from my period as Minister of State, a very long time ago, that when a file became the subject of the attention of the parliamentary commissioner, the colour of its cover changed. It became dark red—maroon—and everyone knew that it was a very important file. I wonder whether we might use some colour-coding system of that kind which would enable these cases to receive the priority which I am sure they deserve. In the meantime, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to follow his own lead and incorporate into the Bill things that we can do anyway but which perhaps ought to have some statutory backing. I beg to move.
9.45 pm
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to be teased by the noble Viscount that we are simply putting into statute what he and his judicial colleagues do anyway. I do not believe that that is universally true about the Bill. We are talking in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act and its consequences. As your Lordships know, we are introducing a number of measures to reduce delay in the criminal justice system and are piloting the measures at present, mainly to do with straightforward guilty pleas, I agree, but also to do with enhanced case management in the magistrates' court, to which the noble Viscount referred, and starting indictable-only cases in the Crown Court.
I do not believe—and I do not think that the noble Viscount necessarily believes—that the new clause would help to address the problems that we have discussed on a number of occasions this evening. Under Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and regulations, a time limit of 14 days is set for the preparation and service of defence statements once the prosecution has served primary prosecution disclosure, which in turn informs secondary disclosure by the prosecution of any matters which the prosecution considers might assist the defence. I agree with the noble Viscount. The conduct of the prosecution is entirely within the control of the Crown Prosecution Service, under the ultimate direction of the Director of
1382
Public Prosecutions, subject to anything that the Attorney-General may have to say. I agree with him that we can do things there. I do not think we ought to give the courts the power to disregard the time limit for defence statements prescribed by Parliament on this occasion because it applies in a limited range of cases.
In this context, I think that what I said earlier has virtue and weight. Unless practitioners are devoted to the scheme of things which I describe, unless judges are determined, and in particular unless there is a continuity of judicial approach in a particular case, preferably by a single judge managing the case, we shall not get anywhere. The Court Service is in the process of taking forward a project to improve the effectiveness of plea and direction hearings following a review of such hearings and I hope that the judiciary will feel the benefit. I agree with the noble Viscount that a firm judicial grip is needed at preliminary hearings and pleas and directions hearings. It can significantly minimise some of the delays. If one looks, as I do sometimes, at the charts of progress in fairly similar cases at different Crown Court centres, I feel that there is no real answer to the discrepancies other than that some judges are perhaps more focused on these problems than their colleagues in other court centres.
We intend in due course to act on the provision in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, to enable the introduction of statutory time limits for the prosecution of criminal cases overall. I think that the tide has turned; I think that minds are now open to the more effective and efficient management of the system. I do not think that there is fundamentally much difference in approach between the noble Viscount and myself. I am not able to accept his amendment, as he rather foresaw, but I think that he and I share the common goals that he has identified.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I think so, too, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Examination of witness through intermediary]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("and (it necessary) explain").
The noble Lord said: For your Lordships' convenience, I will speak to both Amendment No. 85 and Amendment No. 85A. Amendment No. 85 is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who has indicated to me that he very much regrets his inability to be here this evening for a domestic reason, which I fully honour and, if necessary, will explain. Amendment No. 85A is in my name in the words set down on the Marshalled List. Essentially, the reference is more specific about intermediaries and exactly what they may do.
It is important that intermediaries should be allowed to give explanations in response to questions or answers, if necessary, to help the court and the witness to understand each other. Theirs is not dissimilar to the function of a foreign language interpreter. It is simply to enable the witness and the court to understand one another.
Of course an intermediary must not represent the intent or the particulars of a question or, in particular, of an answer. That is true of foreign language interpreters and it is true of intermediaries. Occasionally an explanation may be needed—for example, an explanation of a difficult word where a simpler word might have been used, or an explanation of a word that the witness uses for a personal place or experience that otherwise would not be easily understood by the court. That is explaining what the witness meant to the court as opposed to what the questioner meant to the witness. The court can of course reject any explanation offered by the intermediary or require the intermediary to clarify the answer with the witness. The judge, magistrates, jury—if there is one—prosecution and defence lawyers will be able to see and hear the witness and the intermediary communicating.
It is important that intermediaries understand their function clearly and that they are not there to interfere with the substance of questions and answers. I recognise that, before Clause 28 is implemented, we need to spell these matters out clearly in guidance and training. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert—
("and to explain such questions or answers so far as necessary to enable them to be understood by the witness or person in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Rules of court may make provision for the appointment and appropriate training of an intermediary.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 86, I wish to say that the proposal in Clause 28 to introduce intermediaries is a bold step and one that I have no hesitation in recommending the Government to take. With proper training, an intermediary can enable a witness who would not otherwise have access to the justice system to come forward. It would also facilitate the production of quality evidence.
However, it is vital that the scheme is implemented carefully so that both the intermediary and the court can be assured that they are performing to standards consistent with the production of good evidence. This will take some very innovative thinking on the part of the Home Office.
Even parents of learning disabled sons and daughters—and I am one such parent—will find it difficult to know the limits of any assistance required in a courtroom situation. I view the training and the presentation of intermediaries as essential if such services are to be reliable, safe and in the best interest of vulnerable and often frightened people who may have limited skills with which to seek out their own independent support. These issues must be addressed through guidance, which is why I propose to add an additional subsection to the Bill.
I would like to make one further brief point on this clause. I notice that no account has been taken of the clause within the financial impact assessment which accompanies the Bill. Undoubtedly there will be financial implications in setting up the intermediary scheme properly. I am disappointed—indeed, amazed—that central funding has not been allocated for this purpose at any stage of a case. There can be little benefit in providing support for a witness in court if the intermediary is not given support at an earlier stage, including as regards the preparation of witness statements and ensuring that a witness is familiar with court procedures. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment purely because the intermediary who could be appointed to help someone with a mental disability may have no idea of a courtroom, or how the courts operate, or the proper procedure. They may not be all that well educated, and it would be helpful to the court if they had some training to enable the proceedings to proceed smoothly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Swinfen, that training is required. That was why I indicated in the debate on the previous amendment that before Clause 28 is implemented there will need to be proper guidelines on how intermediaries are to perform their functions and on what qualifications and training will be required. That may be flexible. It may be that a speech therapist has expertise. In some cases it may be a relative of the witness. Therefore, the training and "qualifications" are likely to differ quite significantly as between someone who is a relative of the witness, who will probably never be called upon again in his or her lifetime to be an intermediary, and a speech therapist or someone qualified to deal with the partially sighted or those with poor hearing who may well do it on a regular basis.
I envisage that the guidance will set out a number of factors and criteria that the court may wish to consider when appointing an intermediary. But we believe that it is better to leave it to the court finally to exercise its discretion about whom to appoint. That is much more flexible, practical and helpful than prescriptive rules of court. Guidance would be more readily available to prospective intermediaries who would be unlikely to be legal professionals and might do it on a regular basis or might well not do it more than once. There is a degree of provision for intermediaries that falls within the existing court service allocations for expert witnesses, et cetera. That is intended to deal with the question raised about the financial memorandum. We need to be flexible to achieve the best practical outcome, and we believe that guidance rather than rules of court is the best way forward.
Lord Rix: It is getting late. I believe that at this time of the evening guidance is better than placing something on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Aids to communication]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Warning to jury]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert ("; or
(b) a statement made under section 30(1)").
The noble Lord said: Currently, this clause stands alone and consists of a general warning to the jury against acting prejudicially towards the accused in cases where special measures have been granted. I impress upon those members of the Committee who are present the importance of incorporating an additional warning to the jury not to act prejudicially against a witness. I refer to the jury questioning the weight of a witness's evidence solely on the basis that he or she requires special measures in order to give evidence. Instances of prejudice and discrimination against people with learning disabilities are all too widespread in every sector of society. Therefore, it is unduly optimistic to believe that those prejudices will not be carried over into the courtroom by some members of the public when undertaking jury service. To add an extra warning is a necessary safeguard that should be backed up by the provision of awareness training for jurors who are involved in cases where special measures are to be employed. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Judges normally only need to give a warning to the jury in order to avoid prejudice to the defendant. That warning might cover the inferences that a jury is entitled to draw from the evidence given or from the defendant's behaviour.
Clause 31 provides for a warning, where special measures are used, to the effect that the jury should draw no conclusions about the defendant from the fact that the special measure or measures has or have been used. We provide that because we recognise that the measures in the Bill constitute a significant change of culture for the jury as well as other participants. I do not think that it is necessary to go to the extent that the noble Lord does in the context of witnesses. The judge already has ample discretion to give directions to a jury about witnesses' competence or resolution. We have made that safeguard for the defendant because in a sense this is a change from what we had formerly and we want the defendant's position to be kept absolutely intact in its full integrity.
I do not think that we need the amendment for adequate instruction to be given on the status of evidence to a jury in respect of a witness.
Lord Rix: I am sure noble Lords will note that the amendments I moved today, mainly unsuccessfully, have been concerned with people with learning disabilities. I trust and believe that the Minister is aware that people with learning disabilities present a special case as regards court proceedings. It is easy for juries,
1386
and indeed defence and prosecuting counsel, to object to the evidence given by a person with learning disability because it may be given in a way which is perhaps not acceptable to the normal processes in court.
Having said that, I recognise the good will of the Government and the Minister underlying the Bill and to the amendment I moved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Complainants in proceedings for sexual offences]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Wigoder: Before we continue further with Clause 33—I am not sure what is meant by the doctrine of unripe time, but this may be an appropriate observation—perhaps I may indicate to the Minister, as I am sure he is aware, that we are now embarking on a major and extremely controversial clause on which there is bound to be substantial discussion in the Chamber. I ask him whether he considers it entirely appropriate to proceed on that discussion bearing in mind the time and the fact that inevitably the attendance is perhaps not as representative as it might be on another occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord says. I know that he does not say it for any trivial purpose. I understand—this really is unripe time or its close association—that the usual channels had agreed that we should conclude grouping 37. I am in the Committee's hands as always. My Chief Whip is not present. I do not know what the Committee wishes. I am entirely in noble Lords' hands because I genuinely wish to achieve the best outcome and the best product (I am sorry to use the jargon) for the Bill. I know that a number of noble Lords are present on the basis that we were to continue and break after grouping 37.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Since a number of noble Lords, including the Lord Chief Justice who is in his place, have attended especially for this debate, it seems undesirable that it should be postponed. We are all young in spirit as well as trying to emulate the energy of the Minister. I should have thought that the time is now ripe for the debate, if I may respectfully say so.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is true that in discussion on today's debates before proceedings began, I believe that we anticipated we might reach this point somewhat earlier in the evening. Nevertheless, as we have now reached it, and since a number of noble Lords have attended for

1387
the purpose of discussing the amendment, unless there is a strong wish to draw stumps and debate it on another occasion, I suggest that we should proceed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I gather the general feeling to be contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that we continue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 24, line 5, at beginning insert ("Without the leave of the court.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is so to amend Clause 33 that the court has a discretion to grant leave to cross-examine in person a witness who is the complainant. It is the removal of the prohibition that is starkly stated in Clause 33 and its replacement by a discretion to be exercised by the judge.
The consequences of a conviction for rape or a serious sexual offence are a long term of imprisonment, intolerable persecution from other prisoners within the prison, registration as a sex offender, restrictions after completion of sentence and serious public opprobrium that may last for the rest of that person's life. It might be thought that miscarriages of justice should be avoided because of the consequences for a person convicted of a sexual offence. In principle, there should be no less a burden on the prosecution to prove guilt than in any other category of case.
The trial cannot be conducted on the basis that the defendant is a rapist and that the complainant is a victim since the whole purpose of the trial is to determine whether that be the case. The defendant has a basic right to defend himself and to present his own case in the way he considers best. He may have reasons to distrust lawyers and, in certain situations, he may be in the best position to conduct cross-examination.
On Second Reading, I mentioned the possibility that a husband or partner may wish to put questions directly to his wife or partner who may be complaining of marital rape and seek to persuade her, through cross-examination, that her complaint is not a true complaint.
Unless the defendant's case is put to the complainant, the jury has no means of evaluating the evidence which has been brought forward. The suggestion of these provisions is that the court should appoint a barrister, but a court-appointed barrister will, in practice, be in a virtually impossible situation. He will not be acting for the defendant, who may refuse, in the circumstances, to speak to him at all. He will not be entitled to see the defendant's proof, if there is one. The defendant's case may be entirely different from that which appears in his original interview as part of the prosecution case. Should he give evidence and should his case, in giving evidence, be quite different from the interview—the information which the court-appointed barrister has—there will obviously be a necessity for the complainant to be recalled to be cross-examined again.
But there is no way in which the trial judge could prevent a defendant who wished to represent himself, and who had had a court-appointed lawyer thrust upon
1388
him, from addressing the jury on the basis that he had not had a fair trial. He would be perfectly entitled to say to the jury, "I did not want that man. He has not asked the questions that I wanted to be asked. He has no instructions from me and my trial is therefore unfair". Should the jury agree with that as a proposition—and a jury might well do so—then the defendant might be acquitted in a case where he should not be acquitted.
There have been two highly-publicised cases in which defendants abused their rights to act in person in order to torment the complainant. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in the case of Brown, pointed out that the trial judge has power to protect witnesses and to control questioning. He said,
"The judge may, if necessary, to save the complainant from avoidable distress, stop further questioning by the defendant and take over the questioning himself. Further, if the defendant seeks by his dress or bearing, manner or questions, to dominate, intimidate or humiliate the complainant the judge should order the erection of a screen to protect the witness",
and, in the circumstances that we have been discussing earlier in Committee, the judge would be entitled to order the further giving of evidence by way of a video link or by one of the other measures contained in this Bill.
It is for the Minister to explain whether he believes that these measures which the Lord Chief Justice set out in that judgment are inadequate. In my judgement, it would not be satisfactory, if the purpose of this provision is to do something rather than nothing, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, earlier this evening. It is not enough that this provision should go in as window dressing if there is already adequate provision in the judgment in the Brown case to cover the position of a complainant.
The position taken by myself, although not for the moment by my party, in Amendment No. 90 is to leave the control of the proceeding in the hands of the trial judge, who can evaluate the particular situation in the case. Perhaps I may make a general point. It seems to me that, over the past few years, Parliament has interfered with the discretion of judges not simply in matters of sentencing—and this is an obvious example—but in the exercise of their general discretion to control and run their courts. I believe that the provisions in Clause 33 are unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: Before we continue the debate, perhaps I may say that I missed the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I believe it has been agreed that this group should be split at Amendment No. 95 and that we should discuss the group of Amendments Nos. 90 to 94. Then we should go to the group containing Amendment Nos. 95 to 134 and finish there. We should then continue with Clause 35 on Monday, if that is agreeable.
Lord Wigoder: I hope that the Government Chief Whip will allow me to state that had I observed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had

1389
arrived specifically in order to contribute to this debate, I would never had been so presumptuous as to make the suggestion that I did.
Baroness Mallalieu: Amendment No. 92 stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and myself. It is grouped with this amendment. Therefore, in speaking to that amendment, perhaps I may say something in relation to the amendment which the noble Lord has just moved.
At Second Reading on 15 December, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in relation to this Bill,
"We are approaching this with a genuinely open mind. If your Lordships table amendments that are consistent with the theme and philosophy of the Bill I undertake to give each one [decent] consideration".—[Official Report, 15/12/98; col. 1239.]
In outlining the philosophy behind Clause 33, the noble Lord started from the position which I would ask him at the outset to reconsider. In relation to complaints of rape and certain other sexual offences, he said,
"We owe a duty to the victims of those distressing crimes to ensure that they are not victimised afresh when they come to court. Clause 33 and 34 are designed to fulfil our duty which, in the past, has not been fulfilled".—[col. 1238.]
I begin by saying that what I go on to say is in no way to disagree with the noble Lord that no witness, whether truthful or otherwise who comes before the court, should be bullied, intimidated or threatened. Indeed, when a witness is lying, in my experience that fact is more likely to become clear to those in court if he is relaxed and as at ease as possible in the course of giving evidence.
However, when the Minister used those remarks in outlining this part of the Bill on Second Reading, he appeared to be basing his approach on a presumption that the witness is a victim. The purpose of a contested trial is to determine whether or not that is so. The accused may instead be the victim of a false allegation. We must indeed find ways, as this Bill does, in which we can enable a witness to give evidence more easily so that the court can better determine where the truth lies. But in framing changes in criminal legislation it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming guilt on the part of the accused. Some witnesses may need more help. We are all agreed about that and other parts of the Bill provide for it. However, that does not mean that those who are or may be falsely accused need fewer safeguards or to have their rights eroded. And we must be vigilant to see that that does not happen, despite our best intentions, in these provisions.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, bracketed child witnesses, to which Clause 34 applies, together with adult witnesses in sexual cases. I am sure that he did not intend to be either patronising or insulting because we in this House know him well and we know that that is not his way. Children need special protection in our courts. They are without exception under a disability by reason of age. I have no objection to the extension of that protection; indeed, I welcome it. They are less well able to give evidence; they may require specialist cross-examination to elicit the truth; and the
1390
courts rightly take special powers to ensure that justice is done. However, adult victims of sexual offences do not form a category of people giving evidence under a disability. They come from every background and every level of education. Most, but not all, are women. Some are robust, others are not. They are not under a disability as of class and it is patronising to treat them as though they are.
Of course, very few people relish the idea of giving evidence in any case, particularly in a sexual case which may be acutely embarrassing. But some witnesses are not deterred, and indeed are anxious, to confront their attackers face to face and play their part in seeing that justice is done. When offered the opportunity to have her statement read rather than come to court and give evidence live, I have known a witness in a serious sexual case insist that she wished to give evidence in person in court in the face of her attacker. And she was indeed a devastating witness.
When an adult witness is vulnerable and likely to be prevented from giving evidence satisfactorily if cross-examined by the accused in person, Section 35 gives the court powers to restrict the defendant's right to ask the questions. But that is a different matter and it may well be appropriate in some cases. However, Clause 33 does something which is quite different. It imposes an absolute prohibition with no discretion. It allows for no consideration of the wishes or needs of a witness or of the interests of justice.
The objections to an absolute prohibition, a mandatory ban, are, frankly, these. First, it is a drastic step to deprive an accused person of the right to conduct his own defence. He may dislike or distrust lawyers, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said. He may feel that he can do a better job himself and he may be right about that. He may feel that if he can put his questions directly himself he may elicit the truth where others may fail. Again—forgive the anecdote—I recall a case where the defendant, accused of rape after an argument by someone with whom he had been living, insisted on questioning her himself. It took no more than very few questions, put gently and courteously, before she admitted that the allegation had been made in temper and out of spite, and was now regretted and withdrawn. She was not prepared to continue the lie to that man's face.
The reality of a refusal to allow an accused to cross-examine in person is that he may well afterwards, if he is told that he must have a counsel to represent him, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has already said, quite frankly refuse to co-operate with the lawyer assigned to him. We are of course talking here about a defendant who has already refused legal representation. He may fail to instruct his counsel adequately or at all, so that in effect his case goes by default. The jury will almost certainly be aware in his final speech that he has been prevented from conducting his own defence in cross-examination and may well regard that as unfair and treat his case with particular sympathy.
Is it, I ask, necessary to deprive all defendants of that right in every case of this type? I think not. Reference has already been made to the two cases—both of them

1391
bad cases, both of them attracting extensive publicity and both of them occurring two years plus ago. On 7th May last year the Court of Appeal gave clear guidance to judges faced with this situation, and gave them clear directions as to the steps which they could take, and indeed indicated quite clearly that the Court of Appeal would back judges who, in an appropriate case, stopped a defendant from asking direct questions and indeed stopped him in advance of asking questions, if they had good reason to think that his right to do so would be abused.
Since that date there has been no further problem. There were, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, failures in the past, but in May of last year the Court of Appeal put them right. It is very rare indeed for a defendant to seek to cross-examine himself. Most of them have the good sense to use a trained advocate and, apart from those two cases, I know of no instance where a defendant has intimidated witnesses in that way since. It may be said that public perception is that this happens frequently and so victims are discouraged from coming forward to give evidence. If that is the public perception it is a misconception, and legislation, particularly where it takes away a basic right from the defence, should not be based upon public misconception.
The remedy surely is to acquaint the public with the facts, which are two cases only and action by the Court of Appeal, since when no further problems have arisen. It may be said that victims need to be reassured that this cannot happen and that an attacker will not be permitted to cross-examine. I am sure that many more potential witnesses would be encouraged to come forward if they could be reassured that no one would cross-examine them or question their account at all. But cross-examination is, as we all recognise, a safeguard—indeed the main safeguard—for the wrongly accused against false conviction.
Amendment No. 92, in my name, does not go as far as others in this group. It merely asks that Clause 33 shall not come into force unless and until the Secretary of State, in the light of experience, certifies that it is necessary to protect witnesses. There is no evidence that that is the case today. If the position changes later he can say so, and have his way. It is a very modest amendment and I hope it is one which will find favour. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said at Second Reading, it is surely wise to wait and see if a further remedy is needed before depriving judges of the discretion to control proceedings in their courts, fortified as they are now by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, in the way that they think best.
Lord Wigoder: I rise to support Amendment No. 92 with a marginal preference for that amendment rather than the other amendments in this group. I feel strongly that, unamended, Clause 33 ought not to be allowed to stand.
Like several others Members of your Lordships' Committee, I speak from a lifetime's experience at the criminal Bar, sometimes prosecuting, sometimes defending and sometimes trying cases in which, from
1392
time to time, sexual offences were involved. I hope therefore that the Committee will consider my next few sentences to be relevant to our discussion.
Over that lifetime I came to have a huge respect for our jury system. I believe that on almost every occasion juries returned the appropriate verdict in accordance with the weight of the evidence. But I am bound to say that over that period too there were cases where the verdict surprised me. I have no evidence as to why juries occasionally return such verdicts because evidence is not permitted as to what takes place in a jury room—I am glad that is so—even though that upsets some slightly dyspeptic academics and journalists.
But looking back over those cases, I detected a perfectly clear pattern of the cases in which juries did not convict, even though the evidence appeared to be overwhelming. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will all have had similar experiences. They were cases in which the jury detected that something was wrong. For example, they included cases in which the penalty, if there were to be a conviction, would have been totally disproportionate to the offence. Those cases ranged from a capital murder charge where the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter because they felt that there was strong mitigation on behalf of the defendant, to a much lesser case where the Chief Officer of Police was charged with shoplifting some petty item from Woolworths, and the jury acquitted because, should there be a conviction—never mind the sentence the court would impose there would be a penalty not only of the loss of his job, but also the loss of his pension.
There were frequently cases where the jury felt that the power of the state was being used unreasonably to oppress the ordinary citizen in a matter in which it was apparent to everybody that the ordinary citizen appeared to have been acting in the public interest. I remember a number of cases under the old Official Secrets Acts where juries returned acquittals though there was perfectly clear evidence to the contrary.
There were cases where the prosecution had seemed to act unfairly; where they had been discovered half-way through the case to have concealed some evidence that they ought to have disclosed to the defence. There were cases where witnesses for the prosecution were prejudiced and biased and discriminatory in their evidence, however weighty it might be. An obvious example of that, perhaps, is the O. J. Simpson trial heard recently in the United States. There were even cases—I hasten to use the past tense in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—where judges on occasion appeared to be prejudiced in their summings-up in an attempt to secure convictions.
In all those classes of case from time to time the jury would return verdicts of not guilty, despite apparently overwhelming evidence. I am in no doubt that the reason was that the juries, apart from the oath that they had taken, looked at something rather more important; that is, they looked at what they perceived to be the interests of justice and what they perceived to be the fairness of the trial and the fairness of the result. If that is right, let

1393
us apply that situation to that which will now arise if trials are carried out in accordance with the procedure that is conceived by Clause 33.
It is accepted by everybody that a defendant has a complete right to defend himself. Under the clause he still has that right. The right is not refused or abolished. However, there may be certain penalties attached if the defendant insists on enforcing his right. He has a complete right to defend himself or, if he has a legal representative, to dismiss that representative summarily in the middle of the trial if he wants to do so, without giving any reason.
Jurors see a rape case as a case in which the parties start level. They do not see it in the way that some publicists tend to analyse such cases. They do not assume from the very beginning that the man in the dock is a violent sex pervert and that the girl in the witness box is a chaste and comely maid. They start with no preconceived notions and listen to the evidence produced. What happens? In due course, the girl gives her evidence and the defendant, representing himself, as is his right, is told, "No, sorry; you can't ask any questions". What will the jury think? Let us suppose that it turns out later that the defendant has an alibi and says, "I wasn't there. Somebody else interfered with you, if your account of the interference is true". But the defendant is not allowed to put that. It is no good saying, as is said in one of the later clauses, that the judge can appoint a lawyer to act on behalf of the unrepresented defendant against his will and to put what seem to be appropriate questions. How on earth does a lawyer, seeking to represent someone in that situation, without any instructions, know where to start? How does the lawyer know whether the defence is one of consent, mistaken identity, or whatever?
In the result, I believe that the jury will instinctively react in some cases—not in every case; I do not want to exaggerate—saying, "This procedure is unfair. This man is in the dock and he is presumed at this moment to be innocent. He cannot put his defence because he is not allowed to".
It does not end there. Although the unrepresented defendant is not allowed to cross-examine the complainant, he has a total and complete right at the end of the case to make a speech from the dock. That can be a formidable experience. I recall a Minister of the Crown who spoke for five days solidly in such circumstances. It is very difficult for the judge to interrupt a defendant who is making a speech in his own defence from the dock, without also appearing to the jury to be not entirely impartial. A reasonably plausible defendant can say a lot of things in a speech from the dock when he will not be cross-examined, such as why he was not allowed to ask questions, how unfair it was and if only he had been allowed to ask questions, he would have challenged this, that and the other and perhaps have called evidence about this, that and the other.
It is not in the least difficult to envisage a scenario in which in those circumstances a defendant could gain the sympathy of the jury. The jurors would be solidly on his side and when in due course they returned a verdict,
1394

there would be a real danger that, however strong the evidence, from time to time, in some cases but not all, they may say, "This system is unfair and we are going to show that it is unfair by returning a verdict of "not guilty". That is what I fear will happen if Clause 33 becomes effective as it stands.
There are alternatives to the difficult problem of unrepresented defendants starting to "misbehave", if you like, to ask oppressive questions and to frighten and upset witnesses. There are now perfectly clear guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Brown which mean that the judge is in control of the case. In other words, the judge can take control of the case without the drastic measures that are suggested in Clause 33.
I remember one occasion, many years ago, when such a problem arose while I was trying a sexual offence case. The defendant was incessantly cross-examining the girl in the witness box and I was constrained to say to him, "Look, you have asked that question seven times now. I'll allow you to ask it once more, but then we've got to move on to something else. I am sorry to have to tell you, but if you won't take my advice and do what I suggest there will be no alternative but to ask you to finish your evidence and cease any further questioning". Fortunately, the defendant took the advice. He asked the question once more, received exactly the same answer and then moved on to another topic. Thus the trial proceeded to its end. Although the defendant was convicted, there was never any suggestion that I, as the judge in the case, was behaving improperly—and there were no guidelines in existence to support me.
However, at this stage when the problem is fully recognised and when the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has made it perfectly clear that it will strongly support the efforts of judges to control the evil which is being aimed at by the clause, I believe that the powers that the judges have will now be entirely adequate and will prevent this from happening. If the clause is passed, I fear that, as a result of the operation of its provisions, there may well he acquittals in several nasty cases of rape where verdicts of guilty would be fully justified on the evidence.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I find myself in a position of some embarrassment. In the first place, I could not attend the Second Reading debate because I was abroad and I very much regret that fact. Secondly, I am going to disagree with my noble friend Lord Thomas. As he said, putting it very tactfully, our party in this Chamber has no official position on the matter at this stage. Therefore, in a sense, we are speaking for ourselves. Thirdly, I am not a member of the criminal Bar, although I sat as an assistant recorder and a recorder for 10 years. There may perhaps be some advantage in my not being a member of the criminal Bar. I love my colleagues from the criminal Bar, but I am bound to say that I find them somewhat conservative when it comes to doing anything to change the traditional elements of evidence and procedure in criminal trials; indeed, even more conservative than I and my colleagues on the civil side.

1395
I shall address my remarks to something that I know a little about; namely, why I do not think that there is any violation of the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial involved in Clause 33, why I think that there is no conceivable breach of the European human rights convention and why, if something like this provision is not in place, I think that there will be clear violations of the human rights convention—at any rate, if anything like the scandals that occurred in the two notorious cases were ever to happen again.
As the Committee knows, the impetus for Clause 33 springs from the 1996 rape trial of Mr. Ralston Edwards, who chose to conduct his own defence and then deliberately used the trial to embark upon a humiliating and intimidating cross-examination of his victim for several days while wearing the very same clothes that he had worn when he committed the offence. Naturally his victim suffered extreme emotional and psychological distress at being questioned in such a manner. She complained to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg of a breach of her right not to be subjected to degrading treatment. I believe that the case is progressing rather well from her point of view. In my view, it is very probable, if not certain, that the United Kingdom will be found to have breached the convention, including the positive obligation to ensure that such abuses do not occur.
A year after the abuse of the criminal justice process in the Edwards trial, another rapist was able to follow the example set by Mr. Edwards. Once again the courtroom was abused publicly to subject victims, in the words of the trial judge,
"to merciless cross-examination clearly designed only to intimidate and humiliate them",
there being several victims on this occasion. Those cases badly damaged public confidence in the administration of justice in this area.
My noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Wigoder and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, all, I am sure, agree that such abuses of our criminal justice system must not be allowed ever to happen again for the sake both of the victims and of public confidence in our criminal justice system. We must not let our courtrooms be used to scare or intimidate victims of crime so that they are deterred by the ordeal of a humiliating trial from complaining or testifying.
A judge has a difficult task in controlling an unrepresented defendant. I have listened carefully to what has been said so far and I think nothing that has been said suggests otherwise. There are no codes of ethics, no training in questioning standards and legal tests of relevance, and no measures of censure that can be imposed on a non-lawyer who chooses to conduct his own defence. Nor are there many means available to a judge to control the nature and manner of a non-lawyer's questions when that judge is all too aware that too much control before a jury—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has pointed out in a different context—can prejudice the fairness of a trial and its outcome.
For those reasons, I respectfully disagree with the amendments which oppose Clause 33 because of a wish to test the guidelines recently given by the Court of
1396
Appeal, Criminal Division. Those guidelines are most welcome. They invoke what is the inherent power of a judge—a power which judges have always had to prevent abuses occurring in a courtroom. However, that inherent power did not assist the victims in two tragic cases. I believe that the guidelines, although most welcome, are a less sure guide than the guide given by Parliament in legislation. I do not think it is good enough to leave matters to the trial judge, even with the welcome guidelines, when there is a pressing need to restore public confidence in the administration of justice in this area.
It is, I think, entirely appropriate for Parliament to legislate to implement the obligations imposed by the European human rights convention. I do not think anything in Clause 33 usurps judicial functions or breaches separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. I think it is for Parliament to make the laws relating to evidence and procedure, and for the courts to interpret and apply the law.
Of course it is common ground that an accused has a fundamental right to a fair trial, but that is not the only fundamental right that must be protected in the administration of justice. Victims of crime have a right to be treated with dignity and respect and a right to have their personal privacy respected. Letting alleged sex offenders question their alleged victims directly in a publicly provided forum does not protect those competing rights. A properly proportionate balance has to be found and I believe that the Government's proposals achieve that balance without infringing the convention. The Bill does not take away a basic right of the accused, as I hope briefly to explain in the context of the convention.
The Bill was introduced with a single sentence statement made under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act that the Minister considers its provisions to be compatible with the convention. But the statement did not explain the Minister's reasons for reaching that conclusion. I therefore sought the reasons and the Minister gave them to me in a letter of 18th January 1999, for which I am grateful. As he knows, I hope it will be possible in future for the Government to find a practical way of giving reasons of this kind systematically when a government Bill is published, so that Second Reading debates can be better informed and the matter does not have to be dealt with in the way I am about to deal with it. This is presently the only practical way in which the House can be informed of the Government's reasons.
The noble Lord's letter explained that, in drawing up the provisions in Chapter II, the Government gave careful thought to whether they were compatible with the provisions of Article 6 and the right of the defendant to receive a fair trial. Article 6.3(d) states that the accused has the right,
"to examine or have examined witnesses against him".
He also has the right under Article 6.3(c),
"to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".

1397
But, as the Minister pointed out, Article 6.3 does not confer an absolute right to instruct a representative of one's choosing nor to benefit from state funding regardless of means. Nor does Article 6.3(d) preclude a national requirement to be represented in criminal proceedings. The case of Croissant v. Germany supports those views.
And, of course, witnesses too have rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the convention. Those articles set out their right to protection from cruel and inhuman treatment and unwarranted intrusion into their private lives. Aggressive, humiliating and unnecessarily prurient questioning of a complainant by an accused person would, as the Minister pointed out—and I agree—raise issues under Articles 3 and 8.
The Government therefore believe, and I share their belief, that the provisions of Clause 33 and the following clauses will provide greater protection in future cases. The Government also believe (and again I share their belief) that the provisions strike an appropriate balance between the right of the accused to a fair trial and the interests of the witness and his or her right to protection under the convention. The Minister drew attention to the case of Doorson v. Netherlands in regard to the need to balance the witnesses and victims against the interests of the accused. He quoted from paragraph 70 of that judgment, which is very helpful.
I agree with those reasons and with the Government's belief that the provisions in Clauses 33 to 39 are fully compatible with the convention. There is no absolute right of the accused, whether at common law or under the convention, to conduct his defence as he pleases even if he does so in a manner which abuses the rights of his alleged victim. Indeed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal indicates as much in giving guidance.
It is said that there is no need for reform given the rarity of such cases. Yet, surely the serious abuse suffered by one victim, let alone three (Mr. Brown questioned two victims) is enough to demonstrate the need for change. There may well be a positive obligation on the Government under the European Convention to take steps to ensure that no other witnesses are so brutally treated in our courts.
The provisions of Clause 33 are well-balanced, circumscribed and necessary. The amendments tabled in this group would emasculate those provisions, whether by leaving the matter, as at present, to the discretion of the trial judge, or postponing the coming into force of Clause 33 until some unspecified future date.
The Home Secretary does not have a monopoly of wisdom. No one does. But he and his colleagues have decided that these provisions are appropriate and necessary to restore public confidence. I see no reason why Parliament should refrain from enacting Clause 33.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The principles at stake in this debate are about as big and as good as principles can be. On the one hand, there is the need to protect those who are victims of superior power; on the other, there is the need of the accused for the best possible defence and for the
1398
presumption of innocence while that defence is conducted. Both are the kinds of interest that one might be tempted to describe as paramount. But one cannot have two paramount principles. That is the ground of the debate.
One could approach the debate in one of two ways. One could argue about which of these principles is more important. I am extremely reluctant to take that approach because a decision in favour of either on a question so big would, I think, tip the balance of justice quite inadmissibly one way or the other. I should therefore prefer to approach the debate by asking which of these principles is likely to be more damaged by a decision against it in this case.
I am in total agreement with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford that one cannot conduct a trial on the assumption that the accused is a rapist. My noble friend knows, and I think the Committee knows, perhaps rather better than I might have wished, that that is a principle for which I have in the past contended. What is not quite so widely known is that I have not only attempted to defend a male pupil unjustly accused of rape but have also advised no fewer than three female pupils who had been victims of it. I think I can claim to have tried, within my limited sphere, to apply the principles of natural justice and to hear both sides.
It is notoriously difficult to persuade women who have been victims of rape to take their cases to court. I advised all three of those women to do so. I mention the cases now only because I believe it is too long ago for there to be any risk of their being identified. I was successful in one case out of the three in which I advised the women to take their cases to court. The first advice I gave to the woman was: "If you go to court, you do not do it for your own sake, you do it for the sake of the next woman who comes along". When she came out of the witness box, the first thing she said at the beginning of an hour-long international telephone conversation was: "I am extremely glad you gave me that advice. It was true".
Going to court to make this kind of complaint is painful and difficult at the best of times. Discouraging women from coming forward is distressingly easy. We are told that there are only two such cases of the kind complained of. So far that is true. The risk of copycats is real. I would not mind placing a bet that, if the evidence were discoverable, the number of women who have already been deterred from coming forward by the very considerable publicity given to those two cases would probably be found to be several hundred times that number. That is a real blow to the interests of justice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, perfectly correctly, that some women are not deterred from coming forward and from the confrontation. That is true. But, with respect, I do not think that that is good enough. To say that some people can get over the hurdle is not to deny the allegation that the hurdle may be placed too high in the first place. The form of the noble Baroness's statement conceded that there are many women who are deterred. I therefore hope that we can take that as common ground.

1399
What of the effect that this provision might have on the rights of the accused? If it seriously damaged the interests of the accused, that would clearly be a fatal objection. Again I turn to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She said that most accused people had the good sense to use a trained advocate. I do not think that people who use a trained advocate necessarily handicap their defence. Many things have been said in criticism of lawyers—though not by me—but I do not think it has ever been said that, as a general principle, those who employ lawyers are less likely to be acquitted than those who do not. In fact, it is a regular proverb that a barrister who conducts his own defence has a fool for his client.
On one memorable occasion, a highly colourful public figure—whom I will not name in deference to the Rules of Order—was arrested for driving at 120 miles per hour on a motorway. When the case came to court, The Times rather prudently said "Mr. So and So, who is a barrister, conducted his own defence". The said person lost the case—as indeed one might have expected. I do not think the litigant in person—by doing it that way—necessarily increases his chances of acquittal. If he employs an advocate, his chances of acquittal may be increased.
The other point which deeply concerns me is that we misunderstand rape if we take it simply as a sexual offence; it is more an offence of violence than a sexual offence. There is a very real risk—more than in any comparable type of crime that I can think of—that the sheer act of cross-examination may be used as a way of repeating the offence. It is that point about the accused being allowed to cross-examine which really sticks in my gullet. In these cases I think that he does not do it in the hope of an acquittal; he does it in the hope of inflicting future pain. That is something I really do not like.
I have read the directions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. They are good directions. But the difficulty with any attempt to control the behaviour of a cross-examiner by judicial direction is that one cannot know what question will be asked until it is asked. When one reads cases in the very different American atmosphere, one is constantly reading reports that "So and So should be stricken from the record". Once a question has been asked, even if the cross-examiner is restrained, the shock or pain created is already there—it is too late to undo it—and the deterrent effect remains on any future person who may wish to complain, even if the question is ruled out of order.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford drew attention to the risk of people refusing to instruct. It is indeed a risk. So is the risk of people refusing to plead. One cannot stop them doing that; they do it at their own risk. If they wish to do it, they have to be free to do so, even if they know that they suffer from it. Nobody can force the accused to act in his own best interests; we can only do everything we can to make it possible for him to do so if he wants to. I believe that employing a trained advocate normally would be in his best interests.
1400
We have here two good principles in conflict. I believe that less harm is done to either of those principles by the adoption of the clause than by its rejection.
11 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Your Lordships are all agreed that Clause 33 is directed towards an abuse—but it is an abuse that has only been demonstrated to occur on two occasions; no one has so far unearthed any other examples. Following these two very highly publicised cases, everyone feared that there would be copycat examples. There have not been. Your Lordships know that in the second case the Court of Appeal did all that it possibly could to strengthen the arm of judges, and to make it plain to all concerned that they had the power to stamp on this abuse. There has been no further example.
Because it is an abuse, the noble Baroness Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I have tabled an amendment which recognises that if the guidance given by the Court of Appeal proves ineffective something more needs to be done. We do not say, or invite the Committee to say, that we should get on with it, that it is not too bad and we can put up with it. We recognise that if the abuse continues something must be done. But we must hope—at present we have every reason to believe—that the advice that has been given will prove to be effective. As has been pointed out, two years have passed without further copycat examples. We urge the Committee to accept that if the advice proves to be effective it is unwise to introduce a measure that deprives the court of discretion to control its own proceedings in the interests of justice—after all, that is what the judge is there for—and involves the appointment of a legal representative who is not responsible to the accused and very probably is not in receipt of instructions from him.
I believe that I take words out of the mouth of the Minister when I say that no one can cross-examine efficaciously and professionally without instructions. That is true. These are not technical points; nor are they an example of judges defending their turf or of amour propre. These questions are related directly to the administration of justice. Those of us who hope that it will not be necessary to bring this provision into force do so because we believe that it opens the door to the risk of unjust convictions. We believe that the jury will not have heard the complainant appropriately cross-examined. It also opens the door to the risk of unjust acquittal for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder; namely, that the jury may feel that the defendant has not had a chance.
It is no answer to say that in order to find himself in this situation the defendant needs to be awkward, truculent and stupid. He may be so, but it is not a crime under the laws of this country to be awkward, truculent and stupid, and certainly not a crime for which he may be sent to prison for many years on end.
I have never suggested in this House or anywhere that the provision is contrary to the European convention. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is one that I readily accept. But it is not so long since what gripped

1401
the popular press and rightly engaged the attention of your Lordships was the series of unjust convictions which were a blemish not simply on the criminal justice system but on our national life. This House must act at all costs to avert the risk of miscarriages of justice. It is for that reason that I, in company with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, believe it to be urgently important that this provision should not be brought into force unless and until it is clearly shown by practical experience to be needed.
Baroness Lockwood: I had not intended to participate in the debate this evening. I shall be brief. As I listened to the debate I wondered what women who had been victims of rape would feel on hearing a report of tonight's proceedings. I am quite sure that many of them would be deterred from taking their cases to court. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that one wanted to avoid unjust convictions. Of course that is so. One understands the sincerity of noble Lords who have defended the right to a fair trial, but what about the woman who is afraid and deterred from taking her case to court? That has been a common occurrence in the past and one does not want it to continue in future.
I think that it was my noble friend who said that the accused may not receive a fair trial because he refused to appoint an advocate. That would be his choice. The accused would be able to defend himself to the point of cross-examining the woman who was bringing the case of rape. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I believe that if there is to be a balance it should be on her side. Under this clause, there is the possibility of a fair trial without the accused being able to cross-examine the victim in the way that occurred in the two cases referred to. I believe that the majority of women in the country would want this clause to stand as it is.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: The Lord Chief Justice spoke of the great concern about miscarriages of justice. I think that many women in this country believe that miscarriages of justice take place all too often when it comes to the trial of rape.
I believe that an important moment has arrived with this legislation. The Government seek to strike the balance between human rights and civil liberties. It is interesting that it is happening now because we are introducing human rights legislation into this country. That poses an intellectual challenge to us as lawyers in the courts of thinking a different way. Some of my colleagues from the criminal Bar may somewhat lag behind in their consideration of human rights principles.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, in consideration of rape we necessarily have a tension between two principles: between the human rights issues raised on behalf of the complainant and the civil liberty issues of protecting defendants' rights. The happy resolution found here is charting a very subtle course between those two positions. We are not abandoning here the rights of defendants to a fair trial, of proper representations, to be tried to a high standard of proof, and that they are considered innocent until proved guilty. Here we have the charting of a course between
1402
inflexible legislative rules and wholly untrammelled judicial discretion. We know that the former threatens the rights of defendants and that the latter ignores the needs of complainants. But here one has a resolution which seeks to track a middle course. I suggest that the amendments are not taken into consideration by the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke of the intolerable effects of conviction for rape. I agree with him. It is terrible if there is a miscarriage of justice. But in considering that, we also have to have in mind the intolerable effect of intimate cross-examination on a woman if she has been violated and if that cross-examination has been conducted by the person who violated her. The noble Earl spoke effectively about that balancing act. We have to bear that in mind. That is the failing by my colleagues from the criminal Bar.
Sometimes cross-examination can contain menace even when it is conducted without a threatening tone. I was surprised at the suggestion that it might be a good thing if a husband or former husband were able to cross-examine his wife where there is an allegation of rape. That is precisely the kind of circumstance where there can be intimidation and a woman can withdraw her complaint because of fear of what might follow on conviction.
I have acted on behalf of the accused in many cases of rape. I have also been involved in advising those who have been victims of rape; for example, in seeking compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I was indeed the lawyer to whom the noble Earl, Lord Russell, turned when his student was falsely accused. My advice was that which I believe any criminal lawyer, believing in the system, would give; namely, that it would be wrong for him to be asked to leave his university without a trial and that he should insist that the case went to court. That was done in that case and he was properly acquitted.
In the same way, I have to balance my concern on behalf of women with that on behalf of defendants. I have always resisted the demands of some of the women concerned about rape cases that I should never defend in such trials. I have always believed that in my role as a lawyer I should abide by the cab rank principle and acknowledge the experience which comes from acting in such cases. I, too, know the suffering that flows from women feeling the loss of justice and the way in which that leads to a loss of confidence in the criminal justice system generally. I know that from speaking to women's organisations throughout the country. There was a general sense that such cases do not take account of the pain and anguish that women experience in the courtroom.
It is interesting that the Lord Chief Justice said that there had been only two cases, and yet, in making submissions to this Committee, both the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke of two different cases, which were obviously not the ones reported so heavily in the press. They spoke of defendants acting for themselves and cross-examining the victims. The two most recent cases were shocking.

1403
But over the years there have been other shocking cases. There will continue to be such cases if steps are not taken.
I take great pleasure in the fact that this Government have sought to act in securing the confidence of women in the system. It is my belief that this clause does that and also the later clauses which seek to reduce cross-examination on sexual history. We have to see the context. It is about the mythology and the stereotyping that go into these cases and the way in which judicial discretion has not protected women in the past. I say to my noble friend Lord Wigoder that eight questions are seven questions too many of the victim in a case of this kind. That does not speak too well of judicial discretion if matters are left as late as that before there is an intervention. This is a good clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: After such an expert and experienced debate I am hesitant to intervene, but that is not going to put me off. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that he was not speaking for his party, which subsequently became apparent in the debate. I do not believe that this is a party matter. We all speak for ourselves, I certainly do. In any event, I believe that our aims in this matter are the same. They are to balance the very difficult dilemma clearly put to us by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There is the need to protect women from humiliation—particularly from the terrible experiences mentioned in the cases which have been referred to—in contrast to the need not to prejudice a fair trial. That is a very real and difficult dilemma for us. It is a difficult choice to make.
On reflection, having heard the debate, I prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to those in my name. But all the amendments go in the same general direction.
The first question to which we must give attention is whether there will be copy-cat cases. We had some reassurance in respect of that from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice which I found reassuring. In any event, the reason that I prefer Amendment No. 92 is that it provides protection against the possibility of further copy-cat cases.

But the next and more difficult question is as regards how we avoid other women being deterred by the publicity that there was for those two cases in particular and the general publicity surrounding them. It is extremely important to try to do that. It is clear that many women are understandably deterred from pursuing cases and that is not in the interests of justice. It seems to me that that can be matched only by publicity in the opposite direction. I doubt whether our agreement to this clause, as opposed to the rest of the Bill, will do much in relation to that publicity. It is a much larger matter.
The next question which we must address is whether the accused would be denied, by this clause, the opportunity to defend himself properly. I accept entirely the arguments that have been used about the European Convention on Human Rights. As I
1404
understand it, as explained in a letter that I too received from the Minister after Second Reading, that seems to be satisfied provided that a court-appointed lawyer can cross-examine. That provision is essential to the ECHR. But obviously that is a matter which we shall discuss later in the Bill.
The final question is whether, if we do not agree to the clause as printed in the Bill going onto the statute book, we shall have done enough to protect women against the humiliation that there was in those publicised cases.
The first judgment we must make is whether the Court of Appeal's actions have so far been sufficient. So far as we can tell, in the time which has elapsed since the Court of Appeal made its decisions, they have been sufficient to protect women. But, in any event, within the Bill itself, in other clauses, we are going much further in relation to protecting women in that situation. We have already discussed the clause dealing with special measures—screens, videos and so on—which can be used to protect women, in this case, during cross-examination. On another occasion, we shall discuss the question of consent and so on which is dealt with in later clauses.
Therefore, if we do not agree to this clause unamended, it is not that we are doing nothing to address those problems. On the contrary, we are taking some extremely effective steps to address them.
That brings me back to the question of whether the accused will be denied the opportunity to defend himself properly. It is a difficult question, but at least for the time being I come down on the side of Amendment No. 92. We should have the clause on the statute book as a fall back in case the actions that have already been taken by the Court of Appeal and those that we are taking in other parts of the Bill do not prove to be a sufficient safeguard in the matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the tone and content of everything that has been said. I prosecuted and defended in rape cases and I know that the memory never leaves one in a way that is different from other serious cases. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is a generous-hearted man, but he says that women may be put off from complaining of rape. I do not believe that that grasps the true dimension. I do not believe that it begins to describe the deep, bitter distress and humiliation that women feel at the prospect of—I underline that—being cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator.
The noble Baroness said that I promised to look at these matters with an open mind and I continue to do so, but the more I have listened to the arguments tonight the more I have been fortified in my view, which I did not reach lightly, that Clause 33 is correctly included in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also said that there might be a danger of a man being unable to defend himself properly. That cannot arise. The only prohibition is that he shall not be allowed to cross-examine the complainant in person. These are very important matters. There is no question that a defendant cannot

1405
defend himself properly. He can have a court appointed lawyer for the appropriate part of the cross-examination—that is the prohibited part of Clause 33—he can have the lawyer, at legal aid, of his reasonable choice to defend himself throughout. That is no inhibition against defending himself properly.
We have already come to the policy conclusion, which none of your Lordships from any quarter of this Chamber has challenged tonight, that in cases involving children the benefit, as it is, of allowing a defendant the freedom to conduct his defence in the way he chooses does not outweigh the distress of being cross-examined by an unrepresented defendant. No one has raised a question about that tonight and I fortify myself, I believe open-mindedly, with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
What perhaps has not been grasped tonight is the very powerful deterrent—my noble friend Lady Kennedy made this point—that the possibility of being cross-examined by a defendant can have on witnesses considering those agonising circumstances described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as to whether they can face giving evidence in court. I recognise—I have said it often enough in this House—that not all defendants are guilty, but they have then to contemplate the moral burden of dreadful wrong going unpunished because a system is skewed against them.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that it was not a question of judicial amour propre. I entirely accept that. I have never suggested it, nor to my knowledge has any member of this Government. He said that there had been no other cases. I respectfully dissent from that view. There is abundant material to show that there have been many other cases; not cases which have gone to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, but cases of women who simply cannot bear the prospect of being cross-examined by their alleged criminal violator.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that we must avoid the risk of miscarriages at all costs. I do not believe that he and I can agree on that. I do not believe that "at all costs" falls into the equation here. The trial process should not be about allowing witnesses, particularly in this specific class of case, to be abused by defendants who want to take the opportunity to cross-examine, badger, humiliate or intimidate the alleged victim. And it is a crime of violence. It is sexual, physical violence on the occasion of the attack; brutal humiliation and verbal violence in the court setting. They are not, qualitatively, enormously different in some ways. The slightest chance that that can happen in the future, no matter how controlled the questioning, is putting women off coming to court at all. They ask police officers, they ask the CPS. "Is it still a prospect?" and the honest police officer, trained in this class of work, and the honourable servant of the Crown Prosecution Service have to say that it is a possibility—because it is.
I do not consider that husbands should be given the chance to confront their wives in this way if they are accused of rape. I thought myself that a married woman
1406
was no longer her husband's chattel. We have already decided—I repeat because no question has been raised about this—that a father accused of incestuous sexual abuse by his daughter, is denied that opportunity. We did that on policy grounds, which I for one am perfectly happy to defend, defend and defend again.
Of course the witness's evidence must be tested and of course the defendant's unique knowledge of a witness can help to uncover a false complaint, but that can be done fairly; it can be done properly; it can be done in the defendant's interests by a legal representative, properly instructed, who will stick to the issues at trial and is going to be professionally bound by obligations which make judicial control of the trial efficient, expeditious and fair. The prohibition does not curtail the freedom of a defendant to choose what defence should be put forward, or what questions within the proper limits should be asked of a witness. It does stop him taking the opportunity of further humiliation.
I was going to say just a word or two justifying my thumbprint on the front of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, kindly pointed to, but it seems there is no question about that. The certificate, at least in the context of Clause 33, was properly given and I will not deal with the cases in the European dimension which the noble Lord has referred to.
May I take an illustration? At the moment, under the general common law rules, if a defendant defends himself and the judge gives him directions that he must not ask this or that or must desist from this line or not continue with that, the only power the judge has, should he refuse, is to put him down in the cell. The judge has no present power to appoint a court authorised representative—none at all—and therefore in the scheme of this Bill, we are giving additional protection in that context to a defendant who is otherwise not represented. Of course some defendants will be wholly unco-operative: they are at the moment in a vast number of cases. They know the game. They cannot make a statement from the dock as Mr. Stonehouse could but they can still make a concluding speech which is supposed to have some relationship to the evidence which was given. Of course the complainants can play the system as of their choice.
The judge trying the case is perfectly capable and competent, in my experience of the modern judiciary—I say that without presumption—of saying calmly to the jury, "The reason why this defendant cannot ask questions of this woman is because Parliament says he is not allowed to. That is the law of our country. He is not allowed to cross-examine children: that is the law of our country. Whatever you think of it, members of the jury, you and I are bound by it and you are bound to abide faithfully and loyally by your oath." There is no difficulty there if the judge tries the case properly, as they do.
I return to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said: there has been no further problem, for the reasons outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kirkwood and Lady Kennedy, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I profoundly disagree that there is a further problem,

1407
and that it continues with us. The guidance of the Lord Chief Justice in the two leading cases was of course extremely important in setting down what judges have to do and what judges can do to control the proceedings. There was the emphasis that judges should step in to stop irrelevant, repetitive or humiliating questions, and that in certain circumstances the defendant can be stopped from questioning altogether.
I simply say this. That was the law long before those two cases were tried; whether by way of obligation on a member of the Bar or an unrepresented defendant, that was the law. These cases did have enormous publicity. Yet women who are in the position of the students of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are not going to be satisfied on the next occasion when he gives them the moral tutor's guidance, "Ah, all will be well with you because we have got two guideline decisions from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division". I am sorry to say that life is not like that.
We have thought carefully about this. We tried to balance the two rights and the two possible great wrongs of which the noble Earl spoke. It has not been an easy decision for any of us. Many of those concerned in making the decision have a lot of experience in one way or another of practice in various courts. It was not something we rushed into; we thought about it very carefully. The more I have listened to the arguments this evening—arguments which spanned the whole spectrum of possible debate—I regret to say to some Members of the Committee, the more abundantly I am sure we have come to the right conclusion, which, in the nature of things, is a compromise; but it is a right, just and proper one.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I must express my profound disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he queried the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that it was necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice at all costs. I consider that a single miscarriage of justice—as the history of the past few years has shown—carries a disproportionate weight and affects the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system of this country in a deep and significant way.
My noble friend Lord Lester, arguing from principle as he does, because there is in fact no decided case of the Court of Human Rights which supports his proposition, referred to the proportionate principle and sought to balance Article 6.3 against Articles 3 and 8; that is to say, the human rights of the defendant to defend himself against the rights of the complainant who brings forward the complaint. Similarly, my noble friend Lord Russell referred to the balance that has to be struck between competing principles.
However, neither of my noble friends put into the balance the right of a person not to be wrongly convicted. It is more than a right to defend himself that is in that side of the balance when one is considering this problem; there is also his right not to be wrongly convicted. In the other side of the balance, if the position is as the history of the past two years has shown—that
1408
no complainant has been put through this ordeal—and if judges have been given full and proper instructions as to how to deal with this situation should it arise in the future, there is nothing of significance to set in the balance against the right of the defendant not to be wrongly convicted and his right to defend himself.
My noble friend Lord Russell drew attention to the fact that it is painful and difficult for a complainant to go through with her complaint; and so it is; I have no doubt about that—if the complaint is true. Indeed, if it is true, I would add that it requires determination and consistency for a complaint to go forward. But, if one is carrying out a balancing exercise, against that painful and difficult task one has to set the dire consequences to an individual if he is wrongly convicted. A rape case in which I was involved last year resulted in a 14-year sentence of imprisonment for the defendant. That is a considerable period of time for the loss of liberty, followed as it inevitably will be by further restrictions upon that defendant's freedom.
We cannot proceed to make the law as if every complaint were true and as if the complainant had been violated. That is not the case. False complaints of rape are made for a variety of reasons: sometimes due to quarrels over money, the children, another woman or jealousy. All sorts of reasons lead to false complaints being made. It should be borne in mind that the problems of bringing forward complaints and the difficulties to which reference has been made may deter false complaints as well as those which might be properly founded. There is a deterrence not simply for people who are making true complaints and who have the benefit of the force of truth behind them when they make such complaints; a deterrent factor also operates when a person makes a false complaint.
The Minister said that there is no question but that a defendant can defend himself properly. I disagree. I can see that the possibilities of a miscarriage of justice are inherent in Clause 33. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, although I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 92:
Page 24, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not come into force unless and until the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion and in the light of experience gained after the passing of this Act, it is necessary to bring the section into force for the reasonable protection in criminal proceedings of witnesses who are complainants of sexual offences.").
The noble Baroness said: I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in an interesting debate, and particularly those who supported Amendment No. 92, especially the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who changed his allegiance to support it.
The aims of all Members of the Committee who spoke were the same: to avoid miscarriages of justice. We all agree that they occur not just when innocent men are wrongly convicted, but also when guilty men escape

1409
justice. Several Members of the Committee, on both sides of the debate, spoke from great experience of fears that the well intentioned provisions of Clause 33 contain potential danger to cause miscarriages of both types.
I understand the concern of noble Lords, and in particular the difficulties that are faced by a police officer with a complainant who expresses concern about whether she is likely to be cross-examined by her attacker if she goes to court. I think that the Minister has temporarily forgotten that Clause 35 would enable the officer or person advising her to tell her that if the quality of her evidence was likely to be affected by her concern about such cross-examination, the prosecution could apply to the judge and a prohibition on that cross-examination could be made. The Bill contains other provisions which afford protection to those particularly vulnerable witnesses.
I regret to say that I do not believe that many of those who have been the subject of serious sexual attack will not still be deterred, even following the passage of this Bill. That is because I anticipate that the main deterrent is that people are reluctant to come to court, to relive the experience in giving evidence and to be cross-examined by anybody, particularly by a skilled
1410
barrister. I do not believe that the provisions of Clause 33 will lead to more people coming forward than do so now. However, other provisions in the Bill could make a very real difference.
I am sorry that, in the course of this debate, the usually open mind of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been seen to be gently closing; indeed, by the end of what he has just said, it has been seen to be firmly fixed. Nevertheless, between now and Report stage, I hope that all those of us who listened to what has been said can reflect upon it. It is possible that I may find it necessary at a later stage to return to what I consider to be a fundamental change to our justice system. In the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.

  RAF Logistics Headquarters
  RAF Logistics Headquarters
  Armed Forces: Pay Recommendations
  Armed Forces: Pay Recommendations
  Food Standards Bill: Scrutiny
  Food Standards Bill: Scrutiny
  Raw Cow's Milk
  Raw Cow's Milk
  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  Nuisance Calls
  Nuisance Calls
  EU Structural Fund: Allocation
  EU Structural Fund: Allocation
  Dairy Cattle: TB Testing
  Dairy Cattle: TB Testing
  Child Labour
  Child Labour
  Eurostar: Regional Services
  Eurostar: Regional Services
  Airline Passengers: Violent and Disruptive Behaviour
  Airline Passengers: Violent and Disruptive Behaviour
  Planning System Improvement
  Planning System Improvement
  Severn Tunnel
  Severn Tunnel
  Northern Ireland: Castlereagh Holding Centre
  Northern Ireland: Castlereagh Holding Centre
  Police Grant
  Police Grant
  Prison Service Quinquennial Review
  Prison Service Quinquennial Review
  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Prisoners: Drug Test Results
  Prisoners: Drug Test Results
  Crime and Disorder Audit: Child Prostitution
  Crime and Disorder Audit: Child Prostitution
  Prisoners on Cellular Confinement: Religious Books
  Prisoners on Cellular Confinement: Religious Books
  Overseas Police Liaison Officers
  Overseas Police Liaison Officers
  Civil and Political Rights: Review
  Civil and Political Rights: Review
  Special Advisers to Ministers
  Special Advisers to Ministers