Sitting of 4 February 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  Madam Speaker: I call Question 1.
  Mr. Ben Chapman rose—
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will answer Question 1 at 12.30 pm.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pesticides
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What reviews he is undertaking of the use of pesticides in agriculture. [67797]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The pesticides safety directorate is reviewing the use of 49 pesticide active substances as part of the national review programme of older pesticides. In addition, the directorate is playing its full part in the European review programme, which is examining 83 active substances. Furthermore, several hundred pesticide uses, which have been on provisional approval only for three years, are being considered at my request.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is his Department doing to ensure the provision of information and data about older pesticides? What is he doing about organophosphate pesticides, in the light of growing public concern? What reviews will the pesticides safety directorate conduct in future?
    Mr. Rooker: In response to public concern, a major national review of organophosphate pesticides, and compounds with similar actions, is in progress. Human safety is our key concern, and it will not be compromised. In addition, the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and other Government advisory committees, are considering the scientific evidence on the possible impact of long-term, low-level exposure to organophosphates. We should have the interim report in the spring, and, by the summer, a report that draws some conclusions.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Just as the Minister of State's comments on the centrality of the importance of safety are very welcome, so, too, were his comments in response to an Adjournment debate on a pesticides tax, which I initiated a fortnight ago. Is not one of the most important arguments against such a tax, on which we encourage him to be robust, that it may inhibit innovation and the retirement of older, less acceptable chemicals in favour of more modern equivalents?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The idea of a pesticides tax, which is being examined, is seductive, although there are possible down sides, such as greater damage to the environment, the use of older pesticides, which have not been regulated sufficiently, and other misuse. Both my right hon. Friend and I will therefore be making the position quite clear when the appropriate time arises.
    Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of recent health scares is that people no longer have an unquestioning faith in science? Does he also agree that one of the explanations for the huge increase in demand for organic food over recent years is growing concern about the long-term health and genetic consequences of ingesting pesticides?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but let us not exaggerate. Although the Government are doubling aid to organic farmers—we want more to convert—and doubling research effort on organic production, we also check tens of thousands of samples of food every year for pesticide residue, under the control of the pesticides working party. We publish those results. Indeed, in the next tranche of publications, pesticide residues will be published by brand name. The Government's overall policy is aimed at a reduction in the use and volume of pesticides.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the Minister not only for his reassuring words about organophosphates, but for meeting my all-party group, along with ministerial colleagues from other Departments, to discuss the review's progress. Will he look at the issue of warnings to users of pesticides, especially OPs? I am sure that he is aware that, in the 1980s, it was well known that they were extremely dangerous to handle in certain circumstances, yet the trade association, which goes by the extraordinary name of NOAH—the National Office of Animal Health—seems to have been resistant to the provision of any advice on labels. Will he particularly consider the damage to human health as a result of the lack of proper information?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman touches on a serious and important point. We are not completely free agents on the matter, simply because the medicines to which he referred particularly come under the Control of Medicines Act 1968. Confidentiality is therefore greater than under other legislation. Since the matter was first raised with me, I have looked at it. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there were objections and an appeal some years ago about the nature of warnings on labels to users of pesticides and veterinary medicines, to which he referred, especially concerning people who shear sheep. The Department is actively considering the matter.

    Competitiveness
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What discussions took place with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure food production contributed to the DTI's policy document, "Building the Knowledge Driven Economy—Our Competitive Future". [67798]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): MAFF was consulted by DTI at various stages of the preparation of this White Paper.
    Dr. Gibson: In my hon. Friend's discussions with the DTI on the setting up of the Foods Standards Agency, were there ever any disagreements between those who believe in wealth creation, entrepreneurship and innovation, and others who consider food safety and sound scientific advice more important?
    Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the discussions, there was no disagreement about the need to develop a world-class business and a world-class reputation, and the need for the highest safety standards and quality controls. We have taken those initiatives forward by supporting initiatives from the grocery group to co-ordinate the development of food through all Government Departments and the food chain. One of those initiatives is based on best practice, which includes safety and quality.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In the discussions that the Minister has just reported to the House, did he tell the Department of Trade and Industry that clause 23 of the proposed Food Standards Agency Bill would contain powers to enable his Ministry, if he were so minded, to levy charges on the entire food industry to cover all the costs of the agency, all the costs of food enforcement and other associated costs? Does he believe that those powers are necessary to secure a competitive food industry?
    Mr. Morley: That was a collective decision. There will be consultations on the proposals for the Food Standards Agency, and all interested parties will be able to express their views on that and other issues.

    Humanely Reared Meat
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had with food retailers regarding the sale of humanely reared meat; and if he will make a statement. [67799]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I regularly meet food retailers and ensure that they are aware of the high welfare standards of UK livestock production.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the major retailers are doing enough to promote humanely reared meat? Is he satisfied that they are not merely seeking to exploit the widespread desire for humanely reared meat by charging premium prices? Might retailers and the Government do more to promote humanely reared
    1062
    meat by mounting an aggressive advertising campaign designed to demonstrate to a wider audience the extreme cruelties of factory farming?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a very strong point. I regularly meet the British Retail Consortium and others representing major and other retailers in the UK to discuss animal welfare. In animal welfare issues, I want to enlist the aid of the consumer. For consumers to help, they need a clear labelling scheme so that they can purchase animal welfare-friendly products. I am keen on promoting measures to ensure that.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that the standards of animal husbandry and welfare in the United Kingdom are exceptionally high? Although the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is on to a good point, does the Minister agree that the production of humanely reared meat, rather than extensively farmed meat, is a good selling point and will assist the export of meat from the UK? Will he assure the House that, when we are again able to enter export markets—when that happy day comes—that point will be strongly emphasised?
    Mr. Brown: When we get British meat back on to international markets, our strongest selling point will be that British beef is among the safest in the world, and that it is reared to high animal welfare standards. I want to enlist the help of consumers in ensuring that we can get an animal welfare premium in the marketplace for the high livestock rearing standards that we have in this country. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for those objectives.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: While my right hon. Friend is in discussions with the retailers, will he discuss the plight of retailers in Chorley with regard to the proposed fees for small shopkeepers? Will he try to ensure that no tax is levied on small shopkeepers with premises of less than 10,000 sq ft and those belonging to chains of fewer than five shops?
    Mr. Brown: The Government are consulting on the funding measures for the extra costs involved in the setting up of the Foods Standards Agency. The proposal, as the House knows, is for a flat rate levy of £90 a year. That is a charge of £1.73 per week. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member shout that that would be too much. I ask him what sum he thinks would be affordable.
    Mr. James Paice: The Minister has gained a well-deserved reputation for listening to farmers. When will he do something concrete to help our meat producers? He has already taken away more money than he gave them in December. Why does he not use article 36 of the treaty, which allows him to preclude or restrict imports, on the grounds of the protection of health and life of humans and animals—ample opportunity for him to ensure that our standards of welfare, which he has already praised, are met by our imports, as well as by our own production?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do, of course, make use of article 36 where there are grounds for doing so, but I cannot just use it gratuitously as a

    1063
    protectionist measure, as the hon. Gentleman implies. The second point to his question is factually inaccurate. The aid package that I announced before Christmas did a substantial amount to help livestock producers, who I freely acknowledge are going through difficult times. The sums of money involved in the agrimonetary compensation under the hill livestock compensatory allowances are well in excess of the new charges, to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring.

    Genetically Modified Foods
    Judy Mallaber: What measures he is taking to ensure that consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [67800]
    Ms Joan Walley: When he plans to meet the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to discuss genetically modified food. [67801]
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What discussions he has had with the food industry in relation to genetically modified foods. [67803]
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What discussions he has had about compulsory insurance schemes to cover genetically modified products. [67805]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am aware from on-going meetings with the food industry, and having met the ACNFP, that all GM foods marketed in the United Kingdom receive a thorough safety assessment and are required to be clearly labelled in accordance with EC legislation. I have not had any discussions about compulsory insurance schemes to cover GM products.
    Judy Mallaber: I congratulate the Minister on tackling the labelling issue, but does he agree that that must be combined with ensuring that consumers have access to GM-free foods? Will he commit himself to ensuring the greatest possible openness on this and other food policy issues? Does he share the concern that I felt, when I visited the BSE inquiry with a constituent of mine whose son died of CJD, that the successive tragedies relating to the food industry must have some connection with the culture of secrecy that I saw displayed in that inquiry, which we saw with the previous Government?
    Mr. Rooker: To take my hon. Friend's final point first, the culture, in terms of transparency and openness as opposed to secrecy, changed in May 1997. In the brief time that I had to reply to yesterday's debate, I gave examples of what we have done in that regard, including putting non-scientific lay members on all the advisory committees, publishing the minutes and the agendas of all the scientific committees, being open about labelling, and publishing the brand names of our chemical surveillance, veterinary medicine and pesticides residues programmes. The culture has changed dramatically. We will pursue with the EU the gaps in the labelling provision for GM foods relating to additives and flavourings, which I mentioned yesterday.
    Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job and has the confidence of Labour Members in the work that
    1064
    he is doing. In relation to the ACNFP, is he aware that one particular batch of yellow Apache tortilla chips has been withdrawn because of suspected GM contamination? Does he intend, as part of future assessments, that the ACNFP will test for cross-pollination as part of its assessment for the authorisation of novel foods?
    Mr. Rooker: Cross-pollination is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' regulatory process under the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. No crop is grown in Britain, whether genetically modified or otherwise, unless it has been approved by another Government Department, not this Ministry, and it is important that that separation continues.
    I am not aware of the individual case to which my hon. Friend refers. Only four products have been approved in Britain and have gone through the regulatory process governed by the ACNFP, and they are the genetically modified tomato paste, the vegetarian cheese and the soya and maize.
    Mr. Miller: Did my hon. Friend notice the contradiction from Conservative Members yesterday who originally resisted the labelling of GM foods and now seem to be on the offensive? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the programme to bring about greater transparency and choice for the consumer, so that the consumer can choose, he will ensure that his Department does not suggest to the consumer that there is risk? As he has just said, consumers have a high level of protection in the programme, and what we need to ensure is that the consumer has choice.
    Mr. Rooker: The consumer has choice in two ways, and they are both necessary. This covers a point that I neglected to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): labelling is crucial, but, unless there is an alternative product, there cannot be any of the choice that is so crucial. On the initiative of the Government and of the Department, and as a result of discussions that we had a year ago, we published a list of 59 suppliers of GM-free maize and soya—they are mainly from the areas in which it is grown, such as Canada and the United States, although there are some suppliers in Holland—so that British food manufacturers and producers know where to go for GM-free supplies.
    Obviously we require also, through the European Union, a de minimis level so that there is a percentage under which a product can be properly qualified as non-GM. False allegations are made by some food manufacturers, who claim that they are supplying GM-free food when their own contracts with suppliers allows up to 1 per cent. GM food.
    Mr. Simpson: I congratulate the Minister on supporting the introduction of regulations in respect of GM products, which the Tories always blocked or refused to support. Will he consider three possible extensions of that? First, will he consider notifying retailers, whether they are in this place or any other, that they, too, will be included in the chain of product liability, in the way that retailers are in relation to beef on the bone? Will he also consider the possibility of attaching an obligation to have full public insurance indemnification at the point of product licensing?

    1065
    Finally, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will not enter into any mutual recognition agreement with the United States giving access to United Kingdom markets to GM products that have come through licensing processes less stringent than those that apply in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is yes. Nothing will be put on sale in this country unless it has gone through the regulatory process that we carry out ourselves, in conjunction with our European Union partners. It simply will not be possible for a third country, such as the United States, to supply foods to member states of the EU—whether this country or any other—unless those foods have been approved by regulatory processes in this country and the EU.
    All food retailers are liable for what they sell, under the Food Safety Act 1990. It has got to be safe; the liability is clear, and it is no different for GM foods. As I made clear in the debate yesterday, under common law, the firm holding the marketing consent for the GM crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from, or ill effects attributed to, that crop. That will be extended in due course, under the product liability to primary agricultural producers under the European Commission Green Paper on food law.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister says that labelling is crucial in respect of GM products. He will remember that the second of the three options offered to him by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee regarding beef on the bone was to label beef on the bone as potentially harmful to human beings. Why has he chosen the most extreme option offered to him by SEAC while simultaneously choosing to ignore the good advice given to him by English Nature, which said that GM foods may be harmful and therefore there should be a moratorium? Why does he believe SEAC while choosing to ignore English Nature?
    Mr. Rooker: First, English Nature has not said anything whatever about GM foods being harmful. The answer to the rest of the question can wait until 12.30.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I ask my question in all seriousness, because constituents are writing to me about this issue. In respect of the Minister's Department, the Government have suggested that they want to separate the producers of food from such Departments as the Department of Trade and Industry, which looks after industry retailers. How are the responsibilities of Lord Sainsbury being separated, because he is in charge of the Government's science policy? We rely on scientists to give proper advice to the Government, but he clearly has interests—which he has fully declared—in developing and selling GM foods. In respect of those responsibilities, can the Minister reassure the House that it will be clear to my constituents that the Government are being even-handed?
    Mr. Rooker: I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. My noble Friend has made his position absolutely clear, but he is in no way involved in the regulatory process in decisions relating to novel foods. Clearly, the Government—[Interruption.] No, because the Department—and, in due course, the Food Standards
    1066
    Agency—is responsible. We can completely separate sponsorship of the industry and producers from consumer interests.
    The issues of biodiversity and biotechnology involve more than one Department. Obviously, the Department of Health has an interest, as has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have established a new Cabinet Committee so that joined-up decisions can be made across government. As for food regulations, to which the question specifically relates, my noble Friend is in no way involved in that part of Government activity.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister note farmers' concern about the development of genetically modified crops and foods, which they believe is being driven by multinational chemical companies? Will he impose a five-year moratorium to ensure that public safety is not at risk?
    Mr. Rooker: The best way in which I can answer that question—I am not playing with words—is by saying that there is a moratorium on a free-for-all in regard to the planting of such crops. That will not happen: farmers and companies will not be free to plant what they like, where they like. I made that clear yesterday, and I do so again now.
    Under the guidelines that will be introduced under the final proposals of SCIMAC, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—when we have them—there will be controlled introduction and management of GM crops. The planting of each crop will depend on where the next is planted; it will not take place in isolation. It will not be possible for hundreds of acres to be planted willy-nilly, with no respect for what is being planted elsewhere—whether it is genetically modified, or an ordinary crop. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that there will be considerable control over planting.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister understand what English Nature said? It said that the large-scale introduction of genetically modified crops into a small and crowded country such as Britain could have serious environmental consequences. In view of that advice, why will he not do as English Nature suggests, and allow the research for which the Government are paying to be completed before he starts authorising the commercial development of GM crops? It would be prudent to allow a short period during which the research could be studied, before deciding how safely the commercial release could take place.
    Mr. Rooker: That is exactly what is being done. The hon. Gentleman is right: in this country, we grow our food in the countryside, whereas farmers in the United States grow their food on the prairies. In northern Europe—the rest of the European Union is virtually the same in this regard—we must be particularly vigilant in protecting the environment and biodiversity. That is why we have these controls. The same point was made by both the Minister for the Environment and me when we gave evidence to the Select Committee in the other place.
    We have assessed English Nature's views. So far, we have been given no scientific reason why planting should not take place, provided that the final approvals are given.

    1067
    There is currently no commercial planting of GM crops in this country, and, if it happens, it is unlikely to happen before late autumn this year.
    Mr. Tony Colman: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurances. Will he also assure us that the current labelling discussions will include the subject of animal feedstuffs? There are fears that there could be a repetition of the BSE problem, and that farmers will claim that they did not know what was in the feedstuffs. It is important for fanners to be able to reassure the ultimate consumers—ourselves—that what we are eating does not contain GM foods, should they choose to do so. Farmers must be able to choose whether to incorporate GMOs in animal feedstuffs.
    Mr. Rooker: That is an important point. Back in 1992, a committee headed by Professor Lamming suggested the establishment of a special independent advisory committee dealing with animal feedstuffs. The previous Government accepted that recommendation, but did nothing about it. Such a committee is now being set up, and we hope to announce the appointment of a chairman before Easter.
    If hon. Members refer to columns 691 and 692 of yesterday's Hansard, they will see that, in response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I published in full a background note that I had received concerning genetically modified crops. I am sure that the note will be of interest both to the House and to the companies mentioned in it.

    Imported Meat
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the powers he has to ban imported meat. [67802]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The rules for intra-Community trade in meat and for imports from third countries are laid down in European Community legislation. Member states have powers to take interim protective measures in cases where a disease or other serious threat to public or animal health exists.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, under the treaty of Rome, the Minister has the power to ban imports on grounds of animal welfare and public health. Will he use those powers to alleviate the crisis in the pig industry, where producers are being undercut by meat from abroad that is reared in much less suitable circumstances and fed on feeds that would be illegal in this country?
    Mr. Brown: I can use the powers under article 36 for the purposes that are set out. We use them, for example, to ban imports of specified risk materials from cattle, sheep and goats, but I cannot use the article as a general protectionist measure, as the hon. Gentleman wants me to do.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: This morning, we have had many questions about GMOs, but some of us think that an even greater threat to public health could
    1068
    come from artificial growth hormones that are injected into, or fed to, beef cattle. As I understand it, the product is already coming into this country and we are defenceless to stop it. What is the situation? Is it too late to stop that threat to public health?
    Mr. Brown: Those matters are under consideration by the Commission. The European Union has a difference of view with the United States.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: What assessment has the Ministry made in view of the unfortunate industrial dispute that is taking place in the Meat Hygiene Service and this week's threat that the one-day stoppages or withdrawals may escalate to two or three days? What action does the Ministry propose to take to deal with the knock-on impact that that escalation could have on domestic demand for meat consumption, and the fact that all it will do is help our competitors to penetrate our market with imports that are all too often of an inferior quality?
    Mr. Brown: The Meat Hygiene Service is set up as a next steps agency. I hope that the industrial dispute that is under way is resolved soon. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the Government's priority is to ensure that the public are protected.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Why should we not, on principle, simply block the importation of pigmeat if it has been inhumanely produced?
    Mr. Brown: Because this country has a huge vested interest in free trade, rather than in specific protectionist measures. I want British farmers to get that welfare premium in the marketplace, but, to achieve that, we must have clear labelling, the support of the British retail consortiums and other retailers and, above all, the support of United Kingdom consumers. We must encourage them to consume from welfare-friendly production systems, which will be a great support to the UK industry and, indeed, a great advance for animal welfare.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Yes, the farmers are looking for a level playing field, but, to be able to export, farmers have to survive the winter. Does the Minister accept that many sheep farmers are finding it extremely difficult because the grass has stopped growing and they have no money with which to buy feed for their animals? Can he accelerate the hill livestock compensatory allowance package and the ewe premium package that he announced last November to bring the cash forward more quickly?
    Mr. Brown: It is my intention that the enhanced HLCA payments that I announced last November are paid before the end of this financial year. I know that that will give some support for the hard-pressed sheep industry. The mechanism that I used—enhancing the HLCAs—was the only one that was open to me to give extra support to the sheep industry. The Government recognised the difficulties and responded with that one-off aid package.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What meetings he has had recently with the representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy. [67804]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet members of the United Kingdom fishing industry when we discuss possible changes to the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry will have studied the fisheries debate that took place in the Chamber shortly before Christmas. Can my hon. Friend say what the industry's reaction was to the Tory party policy of declaring national territorial waters and fighting some sort of fish war, rather like the previous beef war? Do the fishermen think that that is a realistic and sensible policy? What is my hon. Friend's assessment of that approach to the common fisheries policy?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Minister. The hon. Gentleman is asking about the Opposition's policy. It is not a relevant question for the Minister and I shall move on.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the negotiations about the common fisheries policy, can the Minister say what emphasis has been placed on the possibility of zonal management committees or councils, which would not go against the concept of the Hague preference, but would take account of the fragile nature of many of our coastal communities and the nature of the stocks in those areas?
    Mr. Morley: That is a good point. We have been discussing ways of achieving a greater regional dimension within the common fisheries policy and a zonal approach is part of that. I am interested in those ideas, which are also formulated in a paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. That approach to reforming the CFP and making it better and more practical is far better than any unrealistic policy of reneging on treaty obligations. That is not seen as a credible option by the fishermen and, when espoused by the Conservative party, it is not seen as a credible option by many of its members.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a sustained discussion going on about the need to reform the common agricultural policy before European Union enlargement. What about reform of the common fisheries policy, which is just as important to our fishing communities as is reform of the CAP to our farming communities? When will we see a ban on industrial fishing? What guarantees can my hon. Friend give to our fishing communities that, with enlargement, our fishermen and their communities will be protected against the possible incursion of large fleets that are owned and operated by some of the applicant nations? Let us have a statement on that.
    Mr. Morley: I recognise my hon. Friend's point about industrial fishing. At the next Fisheries Council, the United Kingdom will be advocating new proposals for seasonal closed areas from the Orkneys down to the Humber, which we hope will recognise the concerns about the impact of such fishing, based on the precautionary principle.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that enlargement issues concern our fishing industry and our national interest. It is because of that that the principle of relative stability, which guarantees our quota share and that of other member states, is an important principle that we intend to protect within the negotiations on the CFP post-2002. That will protect our fleet from the effects of enlargement and the potential entry of large Polish fleets, for example.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is it not true that the Minister is nothing if not brazen? After all, before the election the Minister said that he was prepared to go to Amsterdam and say that there would be no progress on treaty negotiation unless quota hopping was dealt with. When he arrived, he threw in the towel the moment his plane touched down. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that our partners in Europe will willingly agree to our regaining control of our waters, which is what the fishing industry wants? Will he back us when we say that we should be as resolute in making and securing those demands as the noble Baroness Thatcher when she secured our original budget contribution? In a word, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say on behalf of the British fishing industry that he is not prepared to take no for an answer?
    Mr. Morley: First, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? Before the election, we said that we did not rule out any approach to deal with issues such as quota hoppers, for example. That was the line we followed. The previous Government had no support for any of the changes that they proposed. Now, after 18 years of supporting the common fisheries policy, during which time they could not resolve quota hopping, agreed to Spanish access to western waters, could not resolve fishing issues or take forward uniform enforcement across the European Union, they seem to be saying that, in some way, they could negotiate a withdrawal from the CFP and tear up treaties agreed by their Administration. It is not credible to do that. Neither is it credible to use the fishing industry as part of the agenda for a eurosceptic attack on the European Union.

    Beef Cattle (Traceability Scheme)
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress has been made in establishing a traceability scheme for beef cattle. [67806]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The cattle tracing system, CTS, became operational on 28 September 1998, and records the births, movements and deaths of all animals registered on the system since that date. It also records details of cattle born since passports were introduced, in 1996. Eventually, it will record the death of those animals, although—as the old system was not working in the same as the new one does—it will not record their movements.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that SQBALR—it sounds like

    1071
    squabbler—is not a board game based on the behaviour of parliamentarians but stands for the Scottish quality beef and lamb regime. Is he aware that the regime's representatives have told me that, as they go round Europe's trade fairs and food fairs, they are asked when people in Europe will also be able to eat Scottish beef? Can he imagine the crisis of conscience for people like me, who will go home this weekend and eat a succulent Scotch sirloin steak or a luscious piece of Scotch lamb, while realising that Europe's restaurateurs and bon viveurs are denied that pleasure? When will the traceability scheme allow us to sell Scottish beef and lamb to Europeans?
    Mr. Rooker: So far, the new system has issued over 800,000 passports, at a rate of about 50,000 to 60,000 passports a week. I am not sure how many of the passports are being issued to SQBALRs, which will be quite young now, having been born and raised since last December. My hon. Friend asks how soon British beef will be exported. It will be exported as quickly as we can possibly receive approval of the practicalities of the date-based export scheme. We are doing all that we possibly can to prepare for the European Commission inspection—which we expect to be held in March, and certainly by early April. It will, of course, be up to the industry to regain its own markets, but recording cattle under the date-based scheme will not be the cause of any delay.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in the beef industry about the apparently ever-receding date on which British beef exports are likely to resume? Will he tell the House how many abattoirs have come forward to offer themselves as dedicated abattoirs for British beef exports? Will he tell the House when he expects to be able to invite the European Commission to send its inspectors to the United Kingdom to examine the facilities through which British beef exports will start?
    Mr. Rooker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the number of abattoirs is less than the fingers on one hand. [Interruption.] I said less than the fingers on one hand.
    Mr. James Paice: Does that mean zero?
    Mr. Rooker: No, not zero. It is a small number—a very small number. They have offered themselves so that the European Commission can inspect the date-based scheme, on which we are consulting. As I said, as soon as we have the scheme in place, we shall invite the Commission to make its inspections. No date has ever been given on which beef off the bone—what the matter amounts to—will be exported. To deal with the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), establishing the cattle tracing system will not be the cause of any delay. We are preparing, as quickly as possible, to invite the European Commission to inspect the abattoirs and the system's ability to trace cattle. As I said, we expect to do that in March or April. When beef leaves the United Kingdom will then be a matter for the industry and the markets.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the current profitability of the pig industry. [67807]
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What action he plans to take to assist the pig industry. [67808]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received about illegal pig subsidies to French and German producers; and if he will make a statement. [67809]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I very much share the House's concern about the current problems facing the pig industry, and shall work constructively with our European Union partners to see what can be done. The Government will, however, continue to oppose the introduction of market-distorting state aids.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Pig producers want only fair competition with our European competitors. What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with our European competitors on the early introduction of their proposals on tether bans? Has he had any discussions on implementation of the directive before 2006? Will he also tell us why grants for conversion were available to Northern Ireland pig producers, whereas such grants were not available to any other producers in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Morley: The Government have consistently argued that although tethers are to be phased out in the European Union, there is no date to phase out sow stalls. I am pleased to report to the House that the European Science and Veterinary Committee has recently published a report that backs our argument that there are strong welfare grounds for phasing out tethers across the European Union. That will be one of our priorities in the negotiations.
    Mr. Evans: The Minister has spoken about his belief in free trade, but what about his belief in fair trade? We have imposed certain obligations on our pig farmers, but some imported pigmeat does not meet those high standards. We do not want special treatment for pig farmers, we want equal treatment. When will he bring that about?
    Mr. Morley: Equal treatment is a serious issue, but the phasing out of sow stalls was agreed eight years ago. The industry has had eight years to prepare for it. There are costs associated with meat and bone meal controls that result from our problem with BSE, for which the previous Administration must take responsibility. We should not apologise for the United Kingdom's high welfare and quality standards in the pig sector. We are doing all that we can to ensure that they are a marketing advantage for retailers and caterers, as they should be, and that our pig industry benefits.
    Miss McIntosh: Has the Minister received any specific representations about illegal pig subsidies in France and

    1073
    Germany? Does he agree with me and with the National Farmers Union that the present procedure of applying to the European Court of Justice is too slow? Will he propose a procedure for an immediate ban on subsidies which the Commission rules illegal or unfair and press for an interim interdict or injunction to stop the damage to the British pig farming industry?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that we shall take immediate action by complaining to the Commission. We have done that over the proposed German and French state aid. The German proposals have been withdrawn and the French proposals have been stopped by the Commission.

  The Attorney—General was asked—
  ATTORNEY—GENERAL

    Pro Bono Work
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What encouragement he is giving to Government lawyers to do pro bono work. [67827]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I are very supportive of pro bono work. My right hon. and learned Friend is a member of the advisory board of the Bar's pro bono unit and we have both attended functions to foster the work of the solicitors pro bono group. We are also keen to encourage Government lawyers who wish to participate in pro bono work, such as assisting at legal advice centres or citizens advice bureaux. Those in charge of the Government legal service have looked at the issue at the request of my right hon. and learned Friend and have concluded that it is possible to encourage Government lawyers to participate in pro bono work.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the attitude of those who commit themselves to pro bono work is the same as that of the Government in the promotion of a community legal service? What specific measures are being taken to put that important service in place and what is the timetable?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend knows that the Access to Justice Bill is currently in the other place. We are hoping that it will be speedily dealt with there and then come here. He is right to say that the same principles underlie that Bill and our encouragement of pro bono work. We do not regard the encouragement of pro bono work as a substitute for the public provision of legal services. It is additional to the public support for access to justice that the Bill will provide.

    Sentencing
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On how many occasions he has sought leave to appeal against over-lenient sentences since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [67828]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 148
    1074
    offenders. Of those, 97 applications have been heard, leave was granted in 93 cases and the sentence was increased in 80, which is 82.5 per cent. of the references that have been heard.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. I realise that the Labour manifesto cannot be implemented in its entirety at a stroke, but when will he be able to fulfil Labour's commitment to extend the powers of the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal? Will he confirm that it can be done by order, without primary legislation, particularly against the backdrop of increasing numbers of victims of crime demanding greater justice in relation to dangerous driving, which I understand cannot yet be referred under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
    The Attorney-General: I am well aware of the manifesto commitment to extend unduly lenient sentences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are actively considering how best to take that forward. I also confirm that a sentence can be extended by order. It is only when one seeks to restructure the original scheme that one requires primary legislation. I share my hon. Friend's concern, which is manifest in all parts of the House, about sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. My hon. Friend is not right, however, as sentences can be extended.
    Mr. Mackinlay: However, sentences relating to dangerous driving cannot be referred, so I was right.
    The Attorney-General: Yes. Causing death by dangerous driving is within the scheduled list. The matter undoubtedly causes concern and over the years a large number of cases involving dangerous driving causing death have been referred.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: What initiatives are being taken forward in order to improve co-operation between the CPS and the police. [67829]
    The Attorney—General: I welcome my hon. Friend's recent visit to the Hertfordshire branch of the CPS. At a local level, police and the CPS are using joint performance management techniques to improve the timeliness and the quality of police files and CPS review decisions. At pilot sites, the police and the CPS are working closely together testing the recommendations in the Narey report on reducing delay in the criminal justice system. At a national level, a working group jointly chaired by the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers is considering the Glidewell recommendations on the establishment of joint police-CPS criminal justice units.
    Mr. Pollard: I am pleased that the Attorney-General mentioned the Glidewell proposals for joint police-CPS criminal justice units. Does he agree that they will make an important contribution to co-operation between the police and the CPS? Better co-operation means that less

    1075
    goes wrong and that, should there be a problem, the police and the CPS do not blame each other. What progress has been made on those matters?
    The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that one side blaming the other without foundation is wrong and impedes progress. However, I am sure that the House will agree that my hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the importance of co-operation between the police and the CPS. The need for such co-operation has underpinned the Government's approach from the outset, and in particular the decision to restructure the CPS into 42 areas. As for criminal justice units, the issue is being pursued by a working group jointly chaired by the CPS and ACPO. It has yet to report, but I am pleased to tell the House that the work has been taken forward in a positive and constructive manner and I am optimistic that we shall be able to build on the Glidewell proposals in a manner that is practical and consistent with the different contributions that the police and the CPS make to the overall process.
    Mr. John Burnett: The question by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) highlights the link between the CPS and the police, but I believe that it misses the crucial point. The Access to Justice Bill greatly extends the rights of audience of CPS lawyers. As a result, they will take some of the most important cases and come under immense pressure. What measures are the Government taking, other than those in the Bill—particularly in clause 36—to ensure the independence of the CPS not just from the police but from many other Executive agencies?
    The Attorney-General: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman about the independence of the CPS, which I value as much as he does. That independence exists by statute, and there was nothing in the Glidewell proposals to undermine that. I do not believe that our proposals in the Access to Justice Bill will undermine them in any way. Indeed, there has never been any suggestion in the summary courts that prosecutors are tainted by any lack of independence.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Narey pilot in Croydon? All cases go to court within three days, and on 75 per cent. of occasions people who plead guilty are dealt with in one day. Across the board, the average case takes only two months, where previously it took many, and indictable cases go straight to Crown court. Now that the police and the CPS work together instead of blaming each other, the system is much better and people know that.
    The Attorney—General: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's detailed report of his investigations into what happens in Croydon. Five similar pilot schemes are under way—in Tyneside, Blackburn and Burnley, Northamptonshire, north Staffordshire and north Wales. The independent consultancy firm Ernst and Young is well known to the House and it has been commissioned to evaluate the results, and will make its final report in July. That report will cover all the initiatives that have been taken, with the exception of indictable-only provisions. Conclusions will be reached only when that report is received, but early indications confirm what my
    1076
    hon. Friend has discovered—that the initiatives have improved co-operation between the CPS and the police. We shall carry on the good work.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree that, if the work is good, it should be carried on. However, there are some signs that police co-operation—even at ACPO level—with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, is not as constructive and forward-looking as the Attorney-General's answer implied.
    The problem is very important, given that the number of civilians employed by the police is greater than the total staff of the CPS. At present, only 50 per cent. of the cases that come forward from the police are either timely or accurate. Will the Attorney-General assure the House that the civilians in the crime support units and the CPS, with the assistance of chief constables, are really preparing to get together, so that there will be an improvement in the coming months?
    The Attorney—General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is a need for further improvement. That is what the initiative is all about. Although different constituencies are involved—the CPS and the police—we hope that they will unite as part of the criminal justice system. Hence, to ensure joint ownership of further initiatives to that end, the pilot schemes have been chaired jointly by the police and the CPS. I assure the House that the early indications suggest that we can make progress towards a unified approach.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also right to say that some files are not up to standard and are not being delivered on a timely basis. I know that, when he was Attorney-General, he sought to make an improvement in that. We intend to continue that very important work to ensure that criminals are brought to justice more speedily, because the public want to be satisfied that public money is spent properly.

    Prosecutions (Juveniles)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on progress on the Government's fast-track prosecution of juveniles. [67831]
    The Solicitor-General: The Government are committed to reduce by half—from 142 days to 71—the average time taken to deal with persistent young offenders. More than 150 youth court areas have fast-tracking schemes in operation, covering almost half the courts in England and Wales. Before May 1997, only eight youth court areas were covered. Tough performance targets have been set for all stages of criminal proceedings, apart from trial. Measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including statutory time limits, should help to ensure that the targets are met.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but he has not answered my question. We want a progress report on whether the time taken for juveniles to be prosecuted is being reduced. The Home Secretary, when in opposition, touched a nerve, and received an enthusiastic welcome, when he said that he would reduce the time it took for young offenders to be prosecuted. It is important to do so, because we all know that they go out committing other offences during the delays in their

    1077
    prosecutions. The hon. and learned Gentleman would win our support if he got on with doing something. When will we see some real results?
    The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support. When we came into office, we inherited an appalling mess. It took four and a half months before persistent young offenders were dealt with. In some areas, good progress has been made. In north Hampshire, for example, the time taken is down to 61 days from four and half months, but I do not pretend that the targets will all be achieved overnight.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, and I hope that he will visit the CPS and other parts of the court system in his area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has in his. North Dorset has adopted performance targets; the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) should encourage those who work in the system.
    Mr. David Lock: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we will make progress only by setting tough performance targets? The House would wish to know precisely what targets are being set for youth courts so that hon. Members can judge precisely what those who operate the system on the ground are expected to do, and so that the public may have confidence that persistent young offenders will be brought quickly before the courts, and disposed of rather than having their cases endlessly adjourned.
    The Solicitor—General: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest. Late last year, non-statutory performance targets were adopted. For youth courts those targets are: from arrest to charge—two days; charge to first appearance—seven days; first appearance to start of trial—28 days; verdict to sentence—14 days. As I said earlier, we are trying to reduce the overall average to 71 days from the four and a half month one that we inherited. We are making good progress.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Madam Speaker: We return now to Question 1.
  The Minister was asked—

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef on the Bone
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to lift the ban on beef on the bone following the report from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement. [67796]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, submitted advice to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 18 January. His advice follows the latest scientific assessment of the public health risk from beef bones by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which was published on 30 November 1998. SEAC concluded that the risk from infectivity in bone marrow
    1078
    and dorsal root ganglia is now less than it was 12 months ago. That assessment reflected the continued decline in the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases.
    The CMO has concluded that a public health intervention now to lift the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 would allow that element of the food hazard that was originally eliminated—albeit reduced in magnitude—to pose a renewed, though very small, risk. He therefore recommends that, in line with the Government's risk reduction strategy on BSE, the existing controls in the regulations should continue for the time being.
    Given the anticipated further decline in the number of BSE-infected cattle during 1999, the chief medical officer has recommended that the controls should be reviewed six months on from 1 February 1999, with particular attention paid to a number of points that he has specified in his advice. He has also asked that, during 1999, a full analysis of the age structure of new cases of BSE be conducted, the success of control measures be audited and new predictions of the incidence of the disease be made. He has also made commitments to continue work on providing estimates of risk in terms that will allow greater public understanding of the level of risk compared with other potential hazards and to ensure that new cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease continue to be carefully monitored.
    The Government welcome the CMO's memorandum. We accept all his recommendations. As we have made clear throughout, the beef bones controls were put in place to protect public health from the risk of nvCJD, and will be lifted only in the light of scientific and medical advice. It is encouraging that the CMO sees grounds for hoping that the situation will improve. If we can, consistent with a further assessment of the medical and scientific evidence, we will lift the ban after the review recommended by the CMO in six months.
    I acknowledge that the delay in lifting the controls will greatly disappoint many in the food and farming industry and many would-be consumers, but the need to protect public health and retain confidence in beef and beef products remains the Government's paramount concern. My colleagues and I continue to expect that the beef bones regulations will be complied with fully and enforced. Copies of the CMO's memorandum and recommendations are being placed in the Libraries of the House and made widely available, including on the Ministry's internet site.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that while there is concern among consumers and, of course, beef farmers, the way forward must be to seek the complete eradication of BSE? Where doubt exists, positive and firm action must be taken. Does he agree that had it not been for the inactivity, secrecy and negligence of the previous Government, we would not face this dilemma? Does he further agree that our first priority is the protection of the consumer, in this instance and in the publication of the Food Standards Agency Bill? That is all in stark contrast to the attitude of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The protection of the public must come first in these matters. He is also right to remind the House of the attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister aware that there will be huge disappointment at this

    1079
    announcement not only among beef farmers who are already struggling but among consumers who continue to be denied the chance to choose their own menus? This is a big setback for an industry that is fighting to regain market confidence. Does he realise that it is also a setback for him personally after all the hints that he has dropped in the past few weeks about lifting the ban? After a six-month struggle to prove that he is different from his unlamented predecessor, he has failed the first real test.
    Only this morning, the House was told that the Government are willing to ignore the warnings of English Nature about the environmental risks that may be associated with the hasty large-scale commercial release of genetically modified crops. Why will the Government not publish the CMO's advice and allow consumers to decide for themselves whether to eat beef on the bone? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the statistical risk of dying from eating beef on the bone and say how it compares with the risks of smoking, an activity where some individual choice is still permitted?
    Mr. Brown: The risk is very small, but it is nevertheless there. The chief medical officer's advice is very clear indeed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned consumer choice, but there would be no consumer choice in a restaurant where beef on the bone had been used in the preparation of stew, gravy, or food of that sort. English Nature is not the chief medical officer. It would be wrong to set the science and the medical advice to one side and make a political decision rather than one based on professional advice. Of course I want to lift the ban as soon as I can properly do so, but the chief medical officer has made it absolutely clear to me—in words that brook no misunderstanding whatsoever—that that time is not now.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: How many people have died from new variant CJD? Does the Minister agree that it is a deadly disease and that the Government are right to be safe rather than sorry? One of my constituents died from CJD and I had to face the family of that constituent. We must ensure that this Government do not get the same reputation as the previous one, who protected the farmers but forgot to protect the public. I am sorry that the ban cannot be lifted yet, but it is better for the consumer and for the fanner to ensure that beef on the bone is safe before the ban is lifted.
    Mr. Brown: Like every other member of the Government, I am determined that we will not get the same reputation as the previous one. I understand that 35 people have now died from the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but I am afraid that it is a statistical certainty that more will follow. We are not yet sure of the profile of the disease, so it is absolutely right to err—if err we do—on the precautionary side.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister concede that he and the agriculture and wider food industries are today the victims of some premature and unfortunate spinning that occurred on his behalf and in his name only last weekend? There is a crisis in morale in British agriculture, which was given something of a fillip by the suggestion that the Minister would be able to make a positive statement today rather than announcing a six-month delay. The down side in terms of morale will thus be all the more acute.
    1080
    Given that we have always disagreed about the ban on beef on the bone, does not the rather unhappy position in which the Minister finds himself today underscore the lack of wisdom shown by his predecessor in not taking the other option that SEAC offered: to publish the quantifiable risk—which is statistically minute—treat the citizens of this country like adults, and allow them to make their own mature decisions as to the risks? Should the Minister not revisit that option as a matter of urgency?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also address the issue of the over-30-months scheme, as today's statement has another worrying implication? As from this month, there should be nothing in the food chain in this country that represents a quantifiable risk. However, if the chief medical officer is offering this advice—which the Government feel compelled to accept—what implications does that have for the credibility of the OTMS?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has the last point wrong. The issue is not the over-30-months scheme but maternal transmission and the very small—but still present—risk that that could cause infectivity in the bone element and in the material clinging to the bone. The hon. Gentleman asked about my desire to lift the ban as soon as I can. As soon as it is the responsible thing to do, I will lift the ban on beef on the bone. However, the advice that I have received from the chief medical officer brooks no misunderstanding whatsoever. In advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, the chief medical officer said:
    "I recommend, that there should be no reintroduction into the human food chain of that proportion of dorsal root ganglia, as well as bone marrow, eliminated through the Beef Bones Regulations for the time being. To do so would mean that this pool of tissue from the small number of animals incubating BSE at the time of their slaughter could be eaten inadvertently during a meal, in meat trimmed off the bone or hidden in stocks, gravy and other products with a beef bone base and ingested without the person realising it."
    The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members invite me to reject that advice, but I feel that I cannot do so.
    Mr. David Winnick: I respect the eating habits of the large majority of British people, but, as a matter of interest, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether any food that vegetarians eat has ever caused anything like the problem that now confronts him and has confronted previous Ministers?
    Mr. Brown: Not so far as I am aware.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I invite the Minister to be less coy? My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked him to tell us the quantifiable risk, and he answered that that risk was very small—but what is it? Is it one in however many millions, or does the Minister not know?
    Mr. Brown: The CMO and SEAC have not quantified the risk in mathematical terms. The phrase they have used is "very small".
    Ms Joan Walley: However great the disappointment at the further delay to the lifting of the ban is, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's decision. May I refer him to another

    1081
    recommendation made by SEAC in November in respect of concern about operations in rendering plants? Will he review current legislation so that the practice of spreading liquid condensate on grazing pasture can be prevented and the substance classified, not as a fertiliser, but as a special waste?
    Mr. Brown: Local authorities already have powers to act in that respect.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that the previous advice was based on a statistical figure of approximately one in a billion? Has he not told the House today that the advice he has now received says that the risk is less now than it was then? Does he not appreciate that, if he waits for the CMO to tell him that there is no risk whatsoever before lifting the ban, he will wait in vain, because the CMO can never give such advice? The issue requires ministerial leadership. The House was encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to understand that he would give that leadership as the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Does he realise what a serious setback today's decision is, both for the industry, and for consumers?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. The real setback for the industry would be if I were to ignore the advice of the CMO and create uncertainty about the safety of beef products in restaurants and in the retail marketplace. That would be an irresponsible thing to do. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the SEAC report, but the CMO did not phrase his advice to me in a way that defines a mathematical average—
    Mr. Michael Jack: He did.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should keep quiet and listen instead of chirping away from the Back Benches.
    I accept what has been said about the SEAC report, but the CMO has not framed his advice in the form sought by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), which is a mathematical formula that has "acceptable" at one end and "unacceptable" at the other. The CMO has said starkly that the risk is very small but that he is not able to recommend a lifting of the regulations now. That advice is not ambiguous: he does not recommend a lifting of the regulations now, but believes that it would be proper to return to the matter in six months' time.
    Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that he will face some disappointed farmers on his visit to my constituency tomorrow. However, does he agree that the worst possible advice to give the industry is that it should follow the lead of the Conservatives, who appear to want put political argument ahead of public safety? This sector is but a small financial proportion of the entire industry, but there is a considerable danger that farming as a whole will become associated with disregarding safety for financial gain. The worst possible action is to urge the Minister to overturn clear medical advice.
    Mr. Brown: I am looking forward to my return visit to Norfolk tomorrow. I am willing to discuss those matters
    1082
    with farmers, but by far and away the worst thing that I could do for the beef market would be to create new uncertainty about whether the product is safe. By the time we have come through the BSE crisis our country will have spent over £4 billion of taxpayers' money, supplemented to a small degree by resources from the European Union, to ensure the safety of the public. It would be wrong of me, as a Minister of the Crown, to undermine public protection. Public safety must come first.
    Mr. David Curry: Since this is a Government who say that they believe in joined-up thinking, how do they reconcile the continued ban on beef on the bone with their continued promotion of the sale of duty-free cigarettes?
    Mr. Brown: It is perfectly possible to exercise choice over the consumption of cigarettes, and the chief medical officer's warnings about cigarettes are printed on the packet. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Brown: I wish that Conservative Members would listen. I have just read to the House the chief medical officer's advice, which makes it absolutely clear that it is not certain in all circumstances that consumers of beef products would be able to exercise that choice. Reintroduction of uncertainty is one of the points that the chief medical officer properly warns against. Whatever the arguments about smoking, the fact is that nvCJD is invariably fatal.
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that research continues into the possible infectivity of bone marrow? We already know of the problems with the dorsal root ganglia, but there has been no assurance yet about bone marrow. That needs to be worked out before any change in policy is made.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. A substantial research programme into precisely that matter is now under way.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the unfortunate and regrettable decision announced today will give our European partners a further excuse to delay the lifting of the beef ban and the introduction of the date-based scheme?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that it will not, for two reasons. First, our European partners are reassured by the public protection measures in this country. It would be irresponsible of me to start dismantling them, particularly against the advice of the chief medical officer. Secondly, the date-based export scheme is for deboned beef, so the issue of bones in beef is not bound up with the resumption of exports from the rest of the United Kingdom; and the same is true for the certified herd scheme in Northern Ireland. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that I very much enjoyed the Irish beef that I ate in Bologna recently when I met the Italian Minister.

Business of the House
12.53 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Bill.[Lords].
TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 o'clock, consideration in Committee of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Water Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 4 o'clock, motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports.
Motions on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Motions on the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Finance) Order and the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Appropriations) Order.
FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [1st Allotted Day].
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [2nd Allotted Day].
Madam Speaker, the House will wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Tuesday 16 February at the close of business until Monday 22 February. The business for that week will be announced in my next business statement but will include:
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of a Government Bill.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for the announcement of next week's business, and for an indication of business for the week thereafter. Will she ensure that, next week, the Chancellor will do what she and every other Cabinet Minister has done: answer written questions on details of his use of Royal Air Force and chartered aircraft? Does she understand that his continued refusal to do so, far from diminishing embarrassment to the Government, is increasing it—quite apart from any discourtesy to the House?
Will the Government announce next week the members of the royal commission on the House of Lords, which the right hon. Lady first trailed some four months ago? The commission already faces a very tight timetable, and it will be made more difficult if the commissioners cannot start because they have not been appointed. In light of the recognition by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that some Members were unable to participate in
1084
the Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill earlier this week, may we have a debate in Government time on the broader issues raised by the White Paper?
Against the background of the exchange at Agriculture questions, may we have a debate very soon on the growing confusion in the Government's approach to food safety and consumer protection? On some issues, they overrule the independent advice that they are given, while on others, they say that they must abide by it.
In the light of the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland, could we have a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Is the Leader of the House able to shed any light on arrangements for Easter and Whitsun, so that Members and staff of the House can make appropriate plans?
Mrs. Beckett: On the issue of the Chancellor answering written questions on travel costs, I must freely admit at once that I am not aware of ever having been asked such questions. Perhaps my memory is at fault. The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers gave answers to questions on ministerial travel on 27 October 1997, 11 December 1997, 15 January 1998, 11 March 1998, 19 November 1998, 27 November 1998, 18 January 1999 and 26 January 1999—and those are only the answers that we can trace. The suggestion that the Chancellor has been reluctant to give answers does not stand. Despite the fact that the Opposition spent more money in government on perfectly proper ministerial travel than this Government, they are trying to make mischief and waste Ministers' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Over 18 years."] I am not talking about 18 years; I am talking about two years.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked me when we hope to announce the names of members of the royal commission. I hope to do so in the near future, and certainly before the House of Lords Bill goes into Committee. I hope that that will be of assistance to him.
I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the White Paper. We have already had—perfectly properly—two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill, and all the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, too. I hope and expect that every hon. Member who wishes to contribute to the debate on the matter will be able to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on food safety, on the grounds that there is confusion in the Government's stance. I do not accept that. I say to him, with respect, that if the previous Government had taken as robust an attitude to public safety as this Government, we would not now be needing to have exchanges such as those we had a few moments ago.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps matters under review, and such can be raised through the usual channels, if that is thought to be necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked finally whether, for the benefit of the House, I can give any indication of the dates of the Easter recess. I cannot give him specific dates, although I anticipate that the Easter recess will include the week commencing Monday 5 April; indeed—as I know that it concerns the efficient handling of Members'

1085
affairs—may I say that I also anticipate that the Whitsun recess will include the week commencing Monday 31 May? I hope that that is of assistance to the House.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will have our traditional annual Welsh day debate this month? It could be our last one.
Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am positive that he alone will make sure that this year's Welsh debate is not our last. I have taken heed of his request.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to the possibility of a debate in Government time on BSE? I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was in the House a few minutes ago when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement. If she was, she will have noted that that the right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable admission by saying that the chief medical officer is effectively giving credibility to the idea that BSE can be communicated from cow to calf—the so-called maternal transmission theory, which has been discounted in the past.
If that means that cattle born since all infected feed was removed from the food chain in August 1996–30 months ago—could have contracted the disease through maternal transmission, that is a new development of alarming proportions for our agriculture industry, as it brings into question the date-based export scheme, and means that the export ban could remain in place. The Minister's admission is a dramatic development, and it is extremely important that the House is given an opportunity to debate it urgently.
Will the Leader of the House read the report in the Daily Express today, which suggests that in the past BSE information has been shredded in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that therefore the Phillips inquiry cannot examine all the factors that have been involved?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear the part of my right hon. Friend's reply to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, although I did hear some of what my right hon. Friend said. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to his attention. I cannot at this moment undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but he will no doubt be able to follow up on the issues that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman further asks me to give attention to the report in the Daily Express. I always give attention to what is reported in the Daily Express and other newspapers. I understand that there is no evidence that any BSE files have been shredded. The Prime Minister has asked that officials provide the inquiry with all assistance, and they are, indeed, doing so.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend read the brilliant but very disturbing article by James Pringle in The Times today about the catastrophe in North Korea? Given the picture that he
1086
draws of 3 million out of 20 million people having already died; of children suffering; of mothers offering their babies to people in the forlorn hope that somebody else may look after them; of women refusing to have children because they know that milk and food would not be available; and of stagnant industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that the House would be ready to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in ensuring that food goes to the stomachs of the children, women and men who are suffering from hunger, and not to the regime or the armed forces? Will she encourage my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to seek any diplomatic initiative that he considers appropriate, particularly with South Korea and China, in order to find a speedy solution to this dreadful problem?
Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking a debate in the next two weeks on that issue? Perhaps he would make that clear.
Mr. Clarke: I hope that it may be possible, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Beckett: I know of the great interest that my right hon. Friend takes in such matters and the great concern that he has always shown. I am not sure whether the matter was raised during questions to the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday, but I will undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the House will share the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend. He will know that it is the Government's aim to make sure that all the assistance and support that we give goes to the people who need it.
Mr. Peter Brooke: As the Member representing Smithfields, may I reinforce the request for a debate on BSE from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), given the consternation that will have been created in the industry by the contrast between privately expressed, highly optimistic departmental spin, and the contrasting disappointing reality today?
Mrs. Beckett: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the disappointment of hon. Members who are concerned about the matter. I understand that only some 4 per cent. of our consumption in recent times has been of beef on the bone. But, of course, I understand the concern that is expressed at anything that causes continued anxiety. I shall certainly undertake to take the right hon. Gentleman's concerns, too, into account.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 102?
[That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments which breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories world-wide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subjected to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade with a view to banning these barbaric practices which put profit before humanity.]

1087
Many of those animals are subject to horrific experiments. If my right hon. Friend cannot arrange a debate on that, will she now join me in condemning those establishments that put profit before humanity?
Mrs. Beckett: There is concern on both sides of the House about the use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures—a matter on which my hon. Friend has long and staunchly campaigned. Any hon. Member would condemn any suggestion of animals being treated cruelly or inadequately cared for, whether for profit or in any other circumstances. The Government endeavour to ensure that there is stringent inspection of such establishments so that such things do not happen.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an urgent debate on Britain's long-standing traditions of religious tolerance and freedom of speech? Would that not give the House an opportunity to reaffirm the fact that, in Britain, for as long as anyone can remember, people have been free to express their religious views, however eccentric, cranky—or even, occasionally, distasteful—they may appear to the majority of people? May we, therefore, reaffirm the principle that, in Britain, protection is provided from persecution in respect of those things, particularly by the Prime Minister?
Mrs. Beckett: I think all hon. Members support religious tolerance and freedom of speech, including the Prime Minister. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman extends his views to the treatment in the press of reports of the schooling of the Prime Minister's daughter, which itself is based on a religious decision.
Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend allow time during the next two weeks for a debate on domestic violence, an important matter which the British Medical Association estimates affects the lives of one in four women in Britain? In my constituency in Luton tonight, it is estimated that the police will be called out to no fewer than six incidents of domestic violence involving women being beaten. Will she allow time for such an important debate and join me in congratulating Women's Aid on its launch today of a website, as another valuable tool for giving advice to women who are victims of that cruel and cowardly crime?
Mrs. Beckett: That is an issue in which my hon. Friend has taken great interest and about which she has shown concern, and I share her welcome for anything that can help to give the right kind of advice and support. I understand that a cross-Government response, drawing in the views of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Women, has been published this week, and I hope that that, too, will help to inform and support those who might be affected.
Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of press reports today, may I reinforce the plea by the shadow Leader of the House for a statement on Northern Ireland next week, in particular to discover whether the Secretary of State believes that the Chief Constable is giving evidence when he speaks unequivocally on television, or whether it is just hearsay, and whether the
1088
chief medical officer for Northern Ireland has given any guidance about the possibilities of death by lead poisoning or sadistic punishments?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish for a discussion on those matters. He will know that all hon. Members deplore the continuing level of violence and brutality. I know that he takes these matters seriously, but I should say that I share strongly the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday that, if the peace process were to come to an end, the result would not be less violence in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 254?
[That this House notes that since 1974, 140 Government posts have been held by unelected members of the House of Lords; and resolves that as part of the wider reform of the House of Lords, such appointments should cease and that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission should be enlarged to enable such a recommendation to be made.]
Although there is a great deal of humbug from the Opposition about the quality of answers to parliamentary questions, and although in their period in office they zealously pursued a denial-of-information policy in respect of this House, there is concern when Ministers who are refusing to answer questions are not available and are not Members of this House. In one particular instance, I have had great difficulty over many months with answers to letters and questions while trying to put into the public domain a matter of some importance: the amount, and details, of medicinal drugs issued to prisoners.
Three deaths have occurred in Brixton prison, which was the subject of a case this week, and last year there were two deaths of women in prison. Strangely, the Minister involved refuses to publish details of how many, and what type, of medicinal drugs are issued in prison, on the extraordinary ground that the information is available locally but would be expensive to collect centrally.
I have obtained the help of a trust, which is offering to put up money to pay for that information to be available, but it is absolutely outrageous that a Minister who is not responsible to this House should deny Members of this House that information.
Mrs. Beckett: All Ministers, of course, are responsible on behalf of the Government as a whole and endeavour to give answers that are as full as they can be. I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern that full answers should be given wherever possible. Indeed, he and I well remember when the previous Government began to divert answers to questions away from this House. I have taken on board the point that he makes. It is not always as easy as it sometimes sounds to accumulate information, which may be gathered on a different basis in different localities.
My hon. Friend's observations about the previous Government are entirely right. A lot of the fuss that Conservative Members make—for example, about answers on ministerial travel—would certainly give people the impression, which my hon. Friend knows is entirely incorrect, that the rules have in some way changed. I suppose that, by Conservative Members'

1089
standards, they have changed, in that the rules that normally apply now apply to us, because we are Ministers; indeed, that seems to be the basis of their objection.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House enable us to debate the £90 tax on food, which will affect about half a million small businesses and voluntary organisations? In the light of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, would not that give an opportunity for Government policy on that issue to be clarified? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be disowning his own Government's policy, which has been to push ahead with imposing this unpopular tax on people who are in a poor position to pay it.
Mrs. Beckett: Let me make these points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Conservative party claims that the measure is some kind of poll tax. If the poll tax had been as little as £90, it would not have been nearly as unpopular as it was. Secondly, his request for a debate suggests that he cannot have been paying any attention: if he had, he would realise that what has been announced is that there is a process of examination of the draft Food Standards Agency Bill by a parliamentary Committee set up for that purpose. What my right hon. Friend said yesterday was that the process of that examination and the consultation about the Bill is genuine, and we shall listen to the views expressed. That is not confusion; it is a clear statement that the Government will take heed of concerns that are expressed. If the Conservative party had done that, it might still be in power.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a debate on the betting industry? Ladbroke's, in my constituency, is creating 80 new, very welcome posts to run its expanded call centre. Can I tempt her to take advantage of the new, improved betting service offered by my constituents? She may, for example, like to join intelligent rugby fans nationwide and back Wales to win the five nations championship this year, or she might like to bet on which Conservative Front Benchers will survive the coming, much-needed shake-up in their ranks.
Mrs. Beckett: I am only too happy to welcome the creation of new jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency, particularly because they are part of more than 200,000 new vacancies that are being notified to jobcentres every month and part of a picture in which total employment has gone up by more than half a million since the general election.
With regard to my hon. Friend's pressing invitation to join him in a bet, I certainly would not dream of getting involved in predicting the results of rugby matches or Conservative Front-Bench reshuffles. My stance on gambling generally, as someone who has always had a highly marginal seat, is that I gamble only with my entire life and livelihood.
Mr. Keith Simpson: If we follow the logic of the last question, is it not a sure-fire, odds-on certainty that, if the right hon. Lady continues to stonewall on the question of the Chancellor's travel arrangements,
1090
the story will become bigger than it is at present? It is of direct interest to the House that the Chancellor is the only Minister in his Department to refuse to give accurate information about the excessive travel arrangements made by him and his colleagues. When will he come clean to the House, and give details of those arrangements? I know that Labour Members think that this is a joke—the Parliamentary Private Secretary certainly appears to—but it involves the Royal Air Force, whose members are currently under great stress and strain, and are about to go into harm's way. They have better things to do than bus around the Chancellor and his cronies.
Mrs. Beckett: Ministers in this Government have better things to do than waste their time, and that of their civil servants, answering nitpicking, mischief-making questions that are costly for the taxpayer. When Opposition Members descend to asking about the precise reasons for, and circumstances of, one 10-minute journey, the position is set clearly in context; but let me set it in a slightly wider context.
During the last Government's final three years in office, expenditure on ministerial overseas visits was in the region of between £6.5 million and £8 million a year. Under the present Government, it is running at about £4 million. The rules on travel have not changed in the slightest. During the last Government's final two years, 10 Ministers travelled on scheduled Concorde flights; under the present Government, only eight have done so. All this is rubbish. It is a phoney campaign by Conservative Members whose only aim seems to be to make it more difficult for Ministers to do their job. We shall resist that.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Yesterday morning, I was trapped in a lift here with five Conservative Members. Discussion inevitably turned to my Right to Roam Bill. One Member representing a Derbyshire constituency said that the Conservatives would not be here for the Second Reading debate on 26 March, because my Bill would be scuppered by my own Government. Hon. Members can imagine my shock and disbelief.
As my Bill—of which I am very proud—is to be published next Monday or Tuesday, and given today's newspaper coverage speculating on the Government's position, would it not be a courtesy to the House for the Minister responsible to make a statement here on the Government's approach to the right to roam on open countryside?
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's devotion to the issue. I am afraid that I represent the city of Derby rather than any of the beautiful Derbyshire countryside represented by, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I know that the House will take great interest in the Bill. I can only say gently to my hon. Friend that, because—as he said himself—the Bill will not be published until next week, I feel that it would be premature for the Government to reach a view now, whatever press speculation may suggest.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made

1091
about the Government's preparations against the possibility of our joining the single currency? Do they intend to publish a White or Green Paper?
Mrs. Beckett: I had not given much thought to whether a White or Green Paper would be published, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friends. As for the preparations, the hon. Gentleman probably knows that, shortly after coming to power, the Government set up a joint committee containing representatives of business organisations, initially to prepare for the launch of the euro—a matter much neglected by the last Government, but one that will affect many in the business community, irrespective of whether Britain joins the currency. That is still under discussion; technical and other matters remain to be resolved, and discussions will continue. But I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request for a Paper of some sort to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Derek Twigg: In view of the welcome announcement by the Government of their campaign to recruit more nurses and the general interest in that matter, will my right hon. Friend find time for us to discuss nurse recruitment on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a discussion of nurse recruitment in the near future, although I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the scale of both the effort that is being made by the Government and the response. He and the House may like to know that, up to now, some 8,000 calls have been made to the NHS hotline as a result of the Government's initiative.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In view of this afternoon's serious and misguided announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can we have an early debate on the plight of the United Kingdom beef industry? As late as last weekend, the Ministry was spinning the line that the beef ban would be lifted soon, yet today we are told that the ban is not even to be reviewed for six months. Can we have a debate urgently on the UK beef industry, so that we can review that matter, as well as the serious and looming problem of the spread of tuberculosis in the beef industry in the south-west?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that question was discussed for some 20 minutes. He will know that the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food follows the very clear advice of the chief medical officer not to lift the ban. There is understanding of the concern of the industry among hon. Members in all parts of the House, but the hon. Gentleman will surely accept that my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman shake his head. I fear that the Government do not share his disregard for advice in those terms from the chief medical officer.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we please have a statement next week by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, to whom I have written on the subject, to clarify his position in respect of the filing of accounts?
1092
The right hon. Lady will be aware that, at Trade and Industry questions a fortnight ago, the Minister declared confidently:
"Every company with which I have been associated has filed its returns in compliance with the deadlines set by Companies house."—[Official Report, 21 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 1008.]
As it has since emerged that that is not true-as demonstrated in the media and in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—because Juniper Communications Ltd. filed late on at least three occasions, does the Leader of the House accept that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry should do the House the courtesy of coming here to make a statement to explain himself and, if necessary, to apologise?
Mrs. Beckett: No. That would be a complete waste of the House's time. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry wrote to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 29 January to make it plain that his answer in the House referred to an inaccurate story in The Times diary about Attractions Ltd., about which, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman had written to him. The Minister has written to him again today.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an assiduous attender at Trade and Industry questions, so he will remember that, in his early days in his present post, the right hon. Member for Wokingham informed me that the Conservative party would say nothing about policy in its first two years in opposition. His time is almost up. I suggest that they come in.
Mr. James Gray: If the Leader of the House will not find time for an early personal statement by one Minister who has strayed, perhaps she will consider early-day motion 269?
[That this House notes that the Right honourable Member for Hartlepool has not made a statement to the House following his resignation from the Government; also notes reports that his loan will not be redeemed from the family funds he indicated were due to be remitted to him; and calls upon him to confirm to the House that any profit from the sale of his property will be given to charity and not kept for himself.]
The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has so far made no personal statement about the circumstances that lie behind his recent retirement, to coin a phrase. Nor has he yet told the House or anyone else what he intends to do with the excessive profits that it looks like he will make out of the sale of his house. Will she find time for him to make such a personal statement?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement next week on the royal commission on long-term care? She will recall that, on 4 December 1997, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was confident that it would report in 12 months. It is now two calendar months late—and counting. With the exception of leaks to the press about what the royal commission is to say, we have heard nothing, despite the confidence of the Secretary of State, so will she arrange for a statement?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to arrange for a statement in the near future, especially as my right

1093
hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered Health questions only this week, when the matter could have been raised. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I am confident that it is a concern that he shares.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is currently in Committee. The right hon. Lady said that the Committee stage of clause 1 will be debated on the Floor of the House next Wednesday. Can she confirm that that debate will not be curtailed by a 7 o'clock deadline and that there will be a full debate? Can the right hon. Lady also confirm—it should not be a problem—that there will be a free vote on amendments to clause 1 dealt with on the Floor of the House next Wednesday? Can she further confirm that Labour Members will have a free vote on new clauses which have to be taken upstairs because of the way in which the Bill has been split but which relate to clause 1 issues rather than the abuse of trust? Opposition parties have already agreed that their Members will have a free vote.
Mrs. Beckett: I regret that I have not gone into the detail of how all those matters will be handled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the way in which they are handled and the way in which the selection is made are matters for the Chair. It is the Government's intention to have a free vote on conscience matters. There is no wish to curtail the debate on Wednesday, but it is sometimes for the convenience of the House to have a reasonable time for debate with hon. Members being quite
1094
clear about when votes are likely to take place. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who although being an assiduous Member is still a newish Member, that that is particularly true of a free vote.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to reconsider her answer about a debate on the White Paper on the House of Lords? She will know that there is to be such a debate in the other place. She will know that many of her hon. Friends failed to participate in the debate this week because of a lack of time. She will also know that the Chairman of Ways and Means will have to ensure that every amendment tabled to the Bill is strictly relevant and that it will not therefore be possible to have a wide-ranging debate—quite properly so—in Committee of the whole House. Can the right hon. Lady ensure that we have a proper opportunity to debate the wider issues and the White Paper?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid I cannot undertake to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right that the House of Lords is having another debate on the White Paper. He will also know that it had two days debate on the general issue as long ago as October. It is natural that the House of Lords should wish to spend more time on this matter, but the Government are conscious of the fact that we are providing substantial amounts of time for debate on what is a simple Bill, and that all of it will be on the Floor of the House. We are anxious that the House should not lose sight of what the Bill does—as opposed to discussing at great length all the issues that could conceivably be raised on House of Lords reform as a whole. We have been doing that already for some 88 years, which makes us feel that one more day is not necessary.

Orders of the Day

  Police
  1.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 179), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  One of the great joys of being the Minister responsible for the police is that one has an opportunity to go around and about our country visiting constabularies and meeting the dedicated men and women who serve as police officers. I have now had the privilege of visiting over a quarter of the constabularies in our country. One gets a sense of the sterling work that is being done up and down the land. The public are taking advantage of the framework now provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to build effective partnerships to help prevent and detect crime and to build the safety and security that is the bedrock of successful communities.
  At this time, it is encouraging to hear from conversations with chief constables, members of police authorities and the officers on the ground their renewed sense of the importance of budget management and sound financial planning. Financial planning will deliver efficient and effective policing, to tackle crime and disorder and to help create safer towns and cities.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman eventually, but I should make a little more of my speech first.
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 puts police at the heart of strategies to combat crime and disorder. However, tackling crime is not the job of police alone—which is why, in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we placed a new statutory duty on local authorities and police together to create local partnerships to reduce crime. The chief constables whom I have met across the country, and their police authorities, are fully committed to implementing the Government's legislation and to working in partnership with other agencies in their communities.
  Today's debate is not about funding police authorities in England and Wales only in the context of the numbers of police officers, but about their funding and their effectiveness. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), with a quizzical look on his face, asks "Why not?" I will tell him why not.
  In 1994, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—with the right hon. Gentleman's connivance and support; he voted for the change—took away the Home Secretary's right to determine police numbers. It therefore does not sit well for the shadow Home Secretary to ask why today's debate is not about police numbers.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: In a minute.
  1096
  The debate is not about police numbers, because you and the previous Government removed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the Minister will give way to me, simply to remind him that he is addressing the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Boateng: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the previous Government took away from the Home Secretary the right to determine police numbers.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is becoming very defensive very early in his speech. Is he saying that there is no relationship between the amount of resources provided to the police service and police manpower? Is not the Home Secretary the police authority of the Metropolitan police? Does not the Home Office therefore have any view on police numbers?
  Mr. Boateng: The relationship has to be determined by the chief constable, as chief officer and as the person with operational responsibility for the deployment of his force. The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity eventually—when we debate London, and the Home Secretary's role as London police authority—to make the points that he would like to make.
  The shadow Home Secretary knows very well that it is utterly disingenuous for Conservative Members to suggest that the Home Secretary has any power to direct chief constables on the numbers of men and women whom they deploy in their force. Although I have no doubt that we shall return, ad nauseam, to his question on police numbers, he and the House should realise that that is not what today's debate is about.
  Today's debate is about how, together—let us explore the matter—we create an effective force to bear down on crime and disorder, we build partnerships between police and public in our communities, and we fund those partnerships. The shadow Home Secretary will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, with some pride, said:
  "In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision … It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994: Vol. 242, c. 113.]
  Now the shadow Home Secretary wants to make numbers a matter for me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, we do not intend to allow him to do so.
  Sir David Madel: Will the Minister give way.
  Mr. Boateng: No, not now.
  We have to take a good long and hard look at what the figures tell us. In 1998–99, total spending on policing in England and Wales is estimated to be about £7.5 billion. Around 65 per cent. of expenditure on the criminal justice system goes on policing. The Government's overall spending plans for the police over the next three years were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last July, following the comprehensive spending review. There will be an extra £1.24 billion for the police service in England and Wales between 1999 and 2002.

  1097
  The total police authority spending for 1999–2000, to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share, will be £7.14 billion. That amount is known as the total standard spending assessment and it represents an increase of £186 million or 2.7 per cent. on the figure for 1998–99.
  We have looked beyond next year and announced spending figures for the following two years to allow police authorities to plan ahead with greater confidence—something that they were never able to do when policing was in the stewardship of the Conservatives.
  Sir David Model: A few minutes ago the Minister lauded the partnership scheme. He will know that Bedfordshire is at the forefront of that and is probably the best in the country. Why is Bedfordshire rewarded with such a dreadfully poor settlement?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has been to see me with his chief constable and other Members of Parliament, including Labour Members, to pray in aid and make representations on behalf of the Bedfordshire force. I was glad to see them. I am equally glad to say that one of my enduring memories of that meeting is the success of the tripartite relationship in Bedfordshire between the police authority, the chief constable and the Home Office. Central to that tripartite relationship is the fact that it is for the chief constable to determine the level of deployment of the men and women at his command. We have given him and the authority adequate resources to carry that out. They will be able to build on the successful partnerships that they have created in Bedfordshire. I am only too pleased to give them and Members of Parliament representing Bedfordshire full credit for those partnerships.
  Looking beyond the coming year, spending on the police will increase by 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01 and by a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That represents a real-terms increase, albeit modest, and demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping the police to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder.
  The settlement also takes forward the Government's commitment to improve efficiency in the police service. We have set a target of 2 per cent. efficiency improvements year on year from 1999–2000. Importantly, we are not requiring the police to hand back the efficiency savings that they make. On the contrary, by achieving their targets, chief constables will be able to reinvest the savings to help meet front-line policing priorities. Once again, I note a quizzical, even sceptical look passing across the face of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and his hon. Friends. I have news for them. All the chief constables and police authority chairmen whom I have met recognise the advantage that that will give their local police force and are grateful for it. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who prayed in aid his case for Bedfordshire recognises that, as—I do not tell tales out of school—it was the thrust of the remarks made around my table when he came to see me. Of course the police want more and hon. Members will ask for more, but they recognise the value of being able to reinvest the 2 per cent. efficiency savings that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary won for them in the comprehensive spending review. Potentially up to
  1098
  £140 million could be freed up to recycle into front-line policing. That is good news, as I hope Opposition Members appreciate.
  In recent years, the police service has been comparatively insulated from many of the pressures facing other parts of the public sector. The efficiency improvements that we are seeking now are no different from those that were expected by the previous Administration of, for example, the prison service, the probation service or the national health service, and then delivered. For example, the probation service has made efficiency gains of over 20 per cent. since 1994, and the prison service has achieved reductions of 24 per cent. in real terms per cost per prisoner since 1992–93. In that context, the 2 per cent. target for the police is reasonable and achievable.
  The efficiency planning process is an important step towards the best value regime from April 2000 that will require the police to demonstrate that they are delivering an effective, efficient, and high-quality service.
  I now turn to the links about funding and performance. In recent years, national increases in police spending have not always been spread evenly across the service. Some forces have received relatively less than others. That is one of the effects of a needs-based formula, but increased resources do not automatically improve levels of service. That is not simply my opinion. It is the conclusion of the independent Audit Commission. Its latest annual report on police performance published on 28 January said that
  "there is still no direct correlation between increased spending and improved performance at the level of individual forces."
  It continued:
  "Some of the forces which have improved their performance the most have had relatively modest increases in spending, while others who have increased spending significantly have either improved less than those with smaller increases, or, in a few cases, have seen their performance deteriorate".
  We have to take seriously that lesson from the Audit Commission.
  Undoubtedly, chief constables and police authorities up and down the country are beginning to reflect on their performance. Let us take an example. The spending of Warwickshire constabulary reduced by more than 5 per cent. in the four years 1994–95 and 1997–98, after adjustments for inflation. During the same period, the percentage of all crimes detected by primary means by the force increased. In particular, detections for household burglaries increased by more than 5 per cent.
  Despite the operation of the formula, with its aim of trying to balance needs in an objective way, much of the present relative spending levels can only be explained historically. Thus, for example, according to latest Audit Commission figures, Merseyside police spend £158 per head of population—the highest of any force outside London and £43 above the national average of £115—while the next highest force—Greater Manchester—receives £22 per head less than Merseyside.
  The Audit Commission also has a number of important points to make about police numbers. There is a general view that more police officers will lead to increases in the proportion of crime cleared up. I hope that Conservative Members do not adhere to that view out of a spirit of party political partisanship and that in their contributions to the debate they will make clear their understanding

  1099
  of—and support for—the Audit Commission's analysis. If they do not, we will know that they are prepared to play party political games with the policing of the country.
  I lay down that challenge to Conservative Members, and I expect them to respond to it. If we are to have a rational debate about policing, we must build it on the evidence available; otherwise, we shall not be taken seriously about an issue that matters so much to our fellow citizens and constituents, and which police officers and police authorities have to confront.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: In due course, but a closer examination of what the Audit Commission has to say on the matter may help the right hon. Gentleman to make his point. The report states:
  "In some forces, there were increases in the number of police officers per 1,000 of the population, but the percentage of crimes solved stayed the same or fell … This reinforces the point … that success in solving crime does not depend solely on the number of police officers available."
  The Audit Commission made an even more telling finding. It states:
  "Some forces with the biggest reductions in numbers of police officers have also recorded some of the largest increases in the percentage of crimes detected during the same period."
  That finding requires an explanation from Conservative Members, who would make a totem of police numbers.
  Mr. Beith: Does the Minister acknowledge that, for the public, deploying a sufficient number of uniformed police officers in the community is an important factor in reducing the fear of crime and making people feel safe on the streets?
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am about to deal with that precise point.
  Of course, the number of police on our streets remains important. The public feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on patrol. However, people are also concerned about efficient and effective policing. It is clear from the Audit Commission's report that we must move way from sterile and simplistic arguments about police numbers. Rather, we must move towards the efficient and well targeted use of resources, and the imaginative use of technology.
  Indeed, what has transformed the public's safety in many town and city centres—and on many estates as well—has not been an increase in the numbers of police officers on undirected patrol, but a huge increase in coverage by closed circuit television, which in turn has freed up officers for detection and prevention duties.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the number of officers visible on the streets, it is also important that the police deal with matters that people consider to be important? My hon. Friend was in my constituency last weekend, and he will know that the partnership introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which he mentioned earlier, has enabled the local community to discuss with the police those matters that they feel to be important.
  1100
  The consequent reduction in crime depends not simply on police numbers, but on the police doing their job in accordance with the objectives of the community.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Gedling, I saw about 100 people from the police, the public, the local authority, voluntary organisations and neighbourhood watch. They came together, giving up a Saturday, to determine local policing priorities and to build effective strategies to prevent and reduce crime. They did so within the context provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a law that owes its introduction, implementation and success to the return of a Labour Government in 1997.
  We must be clear about the context of our debate. It is not only about partnerships such as those. It is also about technology, and about commitments to new strategies for policing being developed by chief officers and the men and women under their commands. It is important to manifest a police presence in different and novel ways.
  Yesterday, I visited Stonehouse and Stroud in Gloucestershire, where one of the most successful innovations has been police information posts. The reality of rural policing is that the numbers game simply does not operate in a way that would provide the assurance referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). Information posts are being developed in post offices and shops in rural towns and villages. People are able to make contact with the police, and the use of new technology provides a presence that not only reassures people, but assists in detection and prevention.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Minister give way.
  Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I must get on. The hon. Gentleman may have a chance to make his own speech.
  The Government welcome the Audit Commission's recommendation that local people and the local media should use the commission's report to ask questions about the performance and efficiency of local forces. The Audit Commission has given us an opportunity to stimulate debate about the most effective ways in which to provide policing services.
  Only last week, we heard about the radical reorganisation being put in place by the chief constable of West Midlands police. He is streamlining senior posts, restructuring major investigation teams and transferring posts from headquarters to local sectors. All that will release more officers for front-line duties, with up to 300 more constables freed to reinforce local operational command units. The chief constable has said that his decisions have led to a turnaround in performance, with crime levels coming down and detection rates going up. That is an excellent example of well targeted, efficient and effective use of resources.
  Similarly, the chief constable of Lincolnshire is restructuring top-tier management and merging some divisions to improve community policing. The local newspaper, the Lincolnshire Echo, succinctly put it: "Less brass means more coppers". [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."' Liberal Democrat Members have made something of a political totem of their press releases to local newspapers such as the Lincolnshire Echo. In Focus, their own publication, they have sought time and again to engender

  1101
  precisely that kind of headline. You should be revelling in it rather than pouring scorn on a headline that, for once, tells its own story. You could learn a lesson or two from it for Focus.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to pull the Minister up, but we are trying to encourage all hon. Members to remember the correct forms of address, and Ministers must conform.
  Mr. Boateng: I stand chastened. However, there is more than an element of truth in that headline. It is not all about more money. We need to recognise and build on that point.
  Let me turn to the details of next year's funding settlement. The police service has given its general support for the continued distribution of police grant in accordance with the needs-based funding formula that was introduced in 1995.
  Ms Jackie Lawrence: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) initiated a review on population sparsity, which is part of the needs-based formula. Is that research continuing and when will it be published?
  Mr. Boateng: It is certainly continuing. Hon. Members will regard it as particularly important research. If memory serves, that change in the needs-based formula was pioneered by the Minister responsible for police before the general election. The recognition of the significance of sparsity to an effective needs-based funding formula draws support from both sides of the House. We await the outcome of that research. I hope that it will be with us in the coming year. We will reflect on its implications for the formula.
  The police service has given its general support for the continuing distribution of the police grant in the way that I described. We therefore propose to continue to allocate virtually all police grant by means of the funding formula. However, we propose a few changes to reflect the latest data available and in response to representations.
  There are two principal changes. First, we are reducing the share of funding allocated on the basis of historical manpower levels in forces from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. The weighting given to this element of the formula, which was introduced to provide some continuity with the old funding arrangements, was first set at 50 per cent. but has been reduced progressively over the past few years. It is right that it should be given progressively less significance as confidence in the needs-based formula continues to grow. The Association of Police Authorities supports the measure.
  The other proposed change is to increase from 13.2 to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of funding allocated on the basis of forces' pensions commitments. This is in recognition of the continuing increase in police pensions costs, which I know concerns hon. Members.
  I have some words on Metropolitan police funding because two other elements in the settlement are to be introduced next year. We propose that the Metropolitan police should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct, exceptional, national and capital
  1102
  city functions. It has proved difficult for the principal formula to take account of those circumstances. To maintain public confidence in the capital and its policing, the special payment will be increased next year by £25 million from £151 million to £176 million.
  Some chief constables and police authorities have criticised the increase as special treatment for the Met. It is no such thing. The Metropolitan police face extra burdens in policing the capital city and extra national responsibilities, of which all hon. Members are well aware. The overall settlement means that the Metropolitan police will receive funding of £1.744 billion next year, an increase of 1.7 per cent. over the 1998–99 figure and significantly below the national average increase. More than 30 forces will receive larger funding increases than the Met next year.
  The financial year 2000–01 will see the establishment of the Metropolitan police authority, which will, for the first time, give Londoners a police authority that is democratically accountable to them.
  Policing is rooted in local communities. Any police force will increase its effectiveness if it can secure the support and co-operation of local people. The Metropolitan police authority will give a significant boost to the Met's current programme of work to involve the people of London. It will therefore deliver not only a more accountable police force, but a more effective one.
  The MPA will be part of the single financial structure provided by the Greater London Authority Bill. This covers the mayor and assembly, the London development agency, Transport for London and the London fire and emergency planning authority, as well as the MPA. The Greater London authority will set the MPA's budget. However, the Home Secretary will have the power to set a minimum budget to ensure that the MPA is able to secure an efficient and effective police force. There will also be provision for an agreement between the Home Secretary and the MPA to set standards for the Met's performance of its national and international functions.
  A further provision of the GLA Bill is the amendment of the Metropolitan police district boundaries. With effect from 1 April 2000, they will be brought into line with the boundaries of the 32 London boroughs.
  Mr. Tom Brake: The Minister may be about to turn to this issue. Will he clarify why the Met will receive no special transitional funds with which to meet the cost of boundary changes? I met Sir Paul Condon yesterday, and he estimated that the cost to the Met would be about £10 million.
  Mr. Boateng: The Metropolitan police have made it clear that they can handle the additional cost—indeed, they are offloading their responsibilities onto the surrounding counties and we are compensating them. That suggestion is a little rich—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will get a Focus headline out of it. [Interruption.] I do not intend to be drawn further down that road.
  It is important to recognise that responsibility for those parts of the Metropolitan police district within Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will transfer to those three police authorities. In the settlement, the Government have recognised that, in making sensible preparations for the change, the three authorities will incur significant

  1103
  additional costs next year. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have set aside a total of £12 million to help the three authorities prepare for the change and meet those transitional costs. We have awarded an extra £2 million to Essex, £3 million to Hertfordshire and £7 million to Surrey, and those payments are reflected in the grant report.
  I know that future changes to the funding formula, are a source of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members. Applying a needs-based funding formula inevitably means that there will be winners and a few losers. Not surprisingly, it is the losers who dislike the operation of the formula—and I fancy that we shall hear from one or two of them today.
  I met chief constables from a number of forces during the consultation period on the settlement, along with members of their police authority and, in some cases, right hon. and hon. Members. In each case—I have referred to a meeting that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire attended—there was no doubt that the police forces were delivering a professional, efficient and effective service with the resources available to them. Each and every chief constable made it clear that he did not oppose the principles of the funding formula. None had come to whinge or complain, and it is correct to say—as I do in the presence of several hon. Members who accompanied their chief officers to the meetings—that none did. That sort of atmosphere did not prevail at any of the meetings. Each set out how they proposed to manage their budget next year and their plans for future years. My officials and I were enormously impressed by their approach to the challenges.
  Three recurrent issues emerged: the pressures of policing urban metropolitan areas; the problems of policing sparsely populated rural areas; and the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula. We have commissioned independent, external research into both density and sparsity and I hope that the results of the research will be available shortly and prove to be conclusive. Meanwhile, we have retained in the formula for next year the sparsity element introduced by the previous Government, even though no objective evidence currently exists to justify it. Although objective evidence is lacking, the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on the value of the sparsity element have been reflected in all the representations made to me.
  Mr. John McDonnell: In the review of the national formulae, will my hon. Friend examine the implications of the local formulae used within individual police authorities? I accept that the formulae used nationally have to be adjusted in line with changes in density, sparsity and other factors. However, the formula used within the Metropolitan police authority has a bizarre result in that individual divisions are penalised for success: where local partnerships work effectively and crime decreases, there is a loss of staff. My local division, Hillingdon, has lost 91 staff in three years as a result of its success. There is a need to go beyond the review of national formulae and examine individual authority formulae and their implications on the ground.
  Mr. Boateng: That is a matter for local decisions: that is the nature of the tripartite arrangement. One of the
  1104
  important aspects that we have preserved in the creation of a Metropolitan police authority is the continued operation of that tripartite arrangement. My hon. Friend has experience of serving with me on a citywide authority at a time when demand for a police authority for London was especially clearly articulated. He will know that the issue he raises is one that the new Metropolitan police authority will want to address with its chief officer, and the Home Office can be relied on to assist in every way possible.
  A number of forces have made plain their case for recognition of what they describe as particular funding pressures: for example, Staffordshire and Warwickshire in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road; and Devon and Cornwall in respect of the eclipse. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met a delegation of right hon. and hon. Members representing Kent constituencies in connection with the extra burdens faced by the Kent force in having to deal with illegal entrants and asylum seekers. We recognise that all hon. Members have views on the issue. I can say only that it has to be understood that, from time to time, all forces have to deal with additional, often unforeseen, pressures. We shall carefully consider the requests made, but I can give no undertakings at this stage. Even if special payments were justified on their merits, it might not be possible to find additional funds until the time of next year's settlement.
  Mr. George Stevenson: My hon. Friend mentions Staffordshire and the Birmingham northern relief road. The police authority faces significant extra expense from having to police the protests that are occurring there, but the 1.7 per cent. increase in Staffordshire police authority funding is well below the national average. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the most sympathetic hearing possible to representations made in respect of the special extra costs that fall on authorities such as Staffordshire, which already suffer from a lower than average increase in the police grant.
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly making the case for Staffordshire. I have listened to him and other hon. Members and I shall bear in mind their representations.
  In conclusion, I turn briefly to capital expenditure. After several years of actual cuts in police capital provision, we are heading for a period of stability. Police capital funding will remain at £144 million next year—the same figure as this year. We have also announced that our plans will allow capital funding to remain stable at £144 million until 2001–02. We have given the three-year figures, again in a spirit of partnership and to allow police authorities to plan ahead with confidence.
  Changes in the capital receipts rules mean that forces are now free to use all proceeds of sale. We have freed them from the ridiculous restrictions of the previous Administration. Next year, all funding for major police building programmes is being maintained, as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police authorities wanted. At the same time, we have been able to increase funding for minor capital works, vehicles and equipment by 2 per cent. for all forces. That is the first such increase for four years. That was never achieved under the previous Administration. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members muttering and moaning, but they

  1105
  must face the fact that we have achieved something that they were unable to achieve. They ought at least to have the grace to recognise that.
  This Government came into office with a determination to reduce crime levels and the fear of crime, to tackle youth offending and to reform the performance of the criminal justice system overall. We also promised to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat. We are doing just that. That policy is working; it is delivering to the police and to the public and will continue to do so. This is a Government who take a stand against crime and disorder. This is a Government who put public money to most effective use. The order that we are debating today does just that and I hope that it will receive the support of the House.
  2.12 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister's speech was very long and did not get any better as it went on. It amounted to a weak defence of the Government's position. The Minister's central point—that there is no relationship between resources and police strength—is ludicrous. At one point, he came near to arguing that fewer police would lead to higher detection rates, which is also pretty stupid. In essence, that confirmed our worst fears about the Government's policy on the police service.
  We shall oppose the order on this basis:
  "One of the functions of the House is to judge Governments by what they promise at elections. On that test, they have palpably failed the House—and, more important, the police and the public."
  Those are the words used by the then Opposition spokesman on home affairs to explain why, in January 1995, the Labour party voted against the police grant in a similar debate. The 1995 order gave more money, not less, to the police than does today's order. That in no way blunted the then Opposition's enthusiasm to take up the police cause.
  Who was the Opposition spokesman? Of course, it was the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is now the Home Secretary. What was his case? It was clear. He said that
  "police services say that they will have to cut police numbers."—[Official Report, 31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 962–963.]
  I am not, therefore, exclusively arguing that case; it has also been made by the Home Secretary. He argued that too few resources were going to the police service.
  Let there be no doubt that the strength and resources of the police service were part of Labour's promised policy in the last election. People listened to the then shadow Home Secretary and drew the obvious conclusion that a new Labour Government were promising more police and more resources.
  Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman denies that. Why, then, did the shadow Home Secretary make those statements in the debate four years ago? It does not make sense. Why did the shadow Home Secretary lead his party into the Division Lobby to oppose a settlement more generous than the one that he is making today? Of course
  1106
  the public took Labour's actions into account. They did not believe that when the Labour Opposition said that, in government, they would be
  "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime",
  they were setting the scene for the biggest reduction in police numbers for 20 years, but let us be in no doubt that that is precisely what is happening today and that it will happen for the next three years.
  When the then shadow Home Secretary was asked about his own plans by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), to whom I have spoken about this matter, he replied:
  "If he retains his seat, I invite him to sit on this side of the House and listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) announcing in his first Budget the details of our spending plans."—[Official Report, 31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 964.]
  My hon. Friend is back, and very welcome he is too, but that is the end of the good news. We all listened to the Chancellor's first Budget and his comprehensive spending review and we have all seen the results.
  There is to be the toughest squeeze on police spending for over a decade. There is no question about that whatsoever. The financial commitment of the previous Conservative Government will not be increased as Labour suggested—it will be cut drastically. That is the essence of the charge against the Government. They have broken their promises. They knew perfectly well that if they went to the country saying, "We shall reduce spending on the police and cut police numbers", they would lose votes and they would lose seats, so they did not say that. They hid behind generalised slogans. There is no question but that this settlement marks the worst news for the police since the Labour party was last in government.
  Let me remind the House of the record since 1979. Between 1979–80 and 1996–97, there was a cash increase for the police of 354 per cent. In real terms, that is above inflation. Indeed, there was a real terms increase of 72 per cent. during the lifetime of the previous Conservative Government. Under this Government—if they last for five years, as the comprehensive spending review assumes—there will certainly be a cash increase. Not even this Government would reduce the cash, but the real terms increase over five years will be less than 1 per cent. However one does the sums, the Government's financial commitment has been reduced.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assist me on a point that I have always found slightly puzzling. When in government, his party always demanded, and rightly so, greater efficiency from all areas of public service—with the single exception of the police. The Conservatives have always been willing to overlook, at least in public but not always in private, the scams and rackets that have gone on in the police force and which, in many areas, led to very poor service. Those are now being dealt with.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter because I was about to make that point.
  We accept the need for efficiency savings. Let us be under no illusion: efficiency savings in the police took place under the previous Conservative Government; they have not suddenly been invented. One need only talk to

  1107
  the Metropolitan Commissioner, the chief constable of West Midlands or the chief constable of West Yorkshire to realise that efficiency savings were not suddenly introduced in 1997. They had been making those savings for years, and rightly so.
  In the same way, the Audit Commission is entirely valuable in guiding the police and setting performance targets. We back that process and it is one of the factors that needs to be taken into account.
  The question is whether the amount of cash and the efficiency savings will meet the costs of the police, including the unavoidable cost of pay and pensions. We believe that, given the Government's settlement, they will not.
  Under previous Conservatives Governments—this cannot be denied—the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by more than 15,000. No one in his wildest dreams thinks that we shall see an increase of that size under Labour. Indeed, no one thinks that we shall see an increase at all.
  Angela Smith: I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. He is arguing, quite commendably, for far more money to be put into the police force. Has he checked that with his shadow Treasury Front-Bench team, which described Labour's spending plans as reckless and said that the Government should spend less?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will if the hon. Lady or the Minister concedes that we spent more money on the police service than this Labour Government are spending. I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Angela Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to intervene on him; it is most unusual. No, I will not concede that.
  Sir Norman Fowler: In that case, the question does not make a great deal of sense. If she will not concede that we spent more, I cannot entirely understand her point.
  Angela Smith: I shall assist the right hon. Gentleman. He is constantly arguing for more money for the police force, yet his Treasury spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), described Labour's spending plans as reckless. Has the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) checked his proposal for extra spending on the police service with his shadow Treasury Front-Bench team?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Lady is struggling, but I shall give her a reply.
  Mr. Mike Hall: I bet the right hon. Gentleman does not answer the question.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Even the Government Whip has broken into verse. I shall reply to him as well. I shall do so by adapting the reply that the then shadow home affairs spokesman, the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, gave in January 1995. I say to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith): "I share the hon. Lady's confidence that the Conservative party will win the next election. If she retains her seat, I invite her to sit
  1108
  on this side of the House and listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) announcing in his first Budget the details of our spending plans." I would add that, under the Conservatives, the police will have the priority that they have always had under Conservative Governments. That is something that the Minister cannot say.
  Mr. Boateng: I can say this: the right hon. Gentleman really must not be disingenuous. He went into the 1992 general election on a promise to increase numbers. We made no such promise in 1997. However, between March 1992 and March 1997, police numbers fell by 500. How does that square with the paeon of self praise in which the right hon. Gentleman has just engaged?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself. He talks of a fall of 500, but that is against a net increase in the police service under previous Conservative Governments of 15,300. There is no question about that.
  Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet again. He has already taken 45 minutes of the House's time, which is far too long in a debate of this length. He has the nerve to say that Labour did not make any pledges on police numbers. What on earth does he think the 1995 debate was about? Why did he oppose the police grant then? Why did his party vote against it? Why did the then shadow Home Secretary say that police numbers were going down? Of course pledges on police numbers and resources were made. The Government are wriggling. They know that they have cut the police force and police services.
  Mr. John Randall: My right hon. Friend probably heard the intervention on the Minister of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), in which he described a 15.7 per cent. reduction in police numbers over three years—it is, in fact, over two years. He omitted to say that the Hillingdon division is now facing a reduction of 11 front-line officers. If the people of Hillingdon were told that at the election, the expression that Uxbridge or Hillingdon deserves better would have rang hollow.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  It is not only Conservative politicians who are saying that police numbers and police resources are going down. So is every organisation in the police service: that of the chief constables, that of the superintendents and, of course, the Police Federation.
  Ms Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way again.
  Under Labour, police numbers are going down. In the first 18 months of this Government, there has already been a fall of almost 800 in the police service. Among the forces that have been affected are the Metropolitan police in London, Sussex, West Yorkshire, City of London,

  1109
  Kent, Essex, Nottinghamshire and Hertfordshire. I know from experience and from letters that I have received that many others, such as Bedfordshire, are feeling the strain.
  Ms Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. I thought that I had made it clear that I will not be giving way again. Others want to speak, and we have already had to listen to the lengthiest speech from a Minister on the Government Front Bench in a three-hour debate that I can remember.
  The strength of a force such as the City of London is now below the 1979 level, posing the question whether this Government want it to continue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is in Committee at the moment, has already taken up the issue.
  Four years ago, the then shadow Home Secretary quoted the views of chief police officers. Those chief police officers have made it clear that they are not remotely happy today. Even more significant is the view of the Police Federation, which represents the bulk of policemen and policewomen. It says:
  "One of this government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order but Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front line services. The public deserves a police service which is properly maintained but with this budget they are being short changed."
  In that, I believe that they speak for a vast number of policemen and policewomen.
  Let us not believe that all commitments on police and crime were made before the election. A number have been made since, including a notable one from the Prime Minister himself. In September, on the day before the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour party's conference, the political editor of The Times predicted that the Prime Minister would endorse the zero-tolerance strategy following his talks in New York with the mayor of New York.
  The political editor of The Times is a notable safe pair of hands. As it happened, he predicted exactly what the Prime Minister would say. In the unmistakable words of a new Labour scriptwriter, the Prime Minister endorsed the policy of zero tolerance, when he said:
  "Don't show zero imagination. Help us to have zero tolerance of crime."
  Three months ago, I went to New York to look at the city's zero-tolerance policing policy, which has been outstandingly successful. Calling it zero tolerance is an inaccurate description. It is, in effect, proactive policing. At its centre are morning meetings, where precinct captains are personally held to account by the chief of police. The number of robberies, burglaries and murders are traced and, above all, the action being taken to solve them is checked. The result is that crime has fallen by 40 per cent. New York, which used to be almost a byword for lawlessness, has been returned to the people, and citizens are moving back into the city.
  What was the prelude to that zero-tolerance policy? The strength of the police in New York was increased by 7,000 officers. I met no policemen in New York, nor any
  1110
  criminologist to whom I talked, who would argue that the policy would have been so successful without those new police officers. Indeed, police numbers in the rest of the United States are also going up, and emphasis is being put on that. The Government have no such policy—we have heard it from the Minister. The policy that this Government are pursuing is that numbers will come down.
  In New York, 40,000 policemen police a population of about the same size as London. Here, we have 26,000 police officers, but worst of all, the numbers are reducing. Over the past 18 months they have decreased by almost 600, and in my view there are further reductions to come. It is simply not possible to achieve the kind of success that has been achieved in New York with the kind of policies being pursued by the Government.
  The issue goes beyond the detection of crime. It affects the nature of our police service and relations between police and public. We do not want a remote a police service. We want a police service as near to the public as we can get it. We await the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. One of its central points will be relations between police and public. I shall in no way prejudge the results of that inquiry. We must learn the lessons of it—I make that clear.
  I hope it will be recognised that relations between police and public in London are generally better than in any other European capital that I have visited. I have studied the police in most other European nations. I do not argue that things cannot be improved—of course they can—but we must avoid demoralising the police and generalising about the service. It would do the police the greatest harm if they were under the pressure of numbers and could not respond properly to the problems of the public.
  In that regard, I say to the Minister that I am opposed to the idea that the police should be replaced, as advocated by one chief constable, by local authority patrols marked "Police Compliant" moving round the high street, drawn from the welfare-to-work programme and funded by central Government. Indeed, I would be tempted to laugh off that suggestion from a chief constable, had not the Home Secretary been quoted as saying that the chief constable's plans were "a real possibility".
  We have an organised police precisely because of the breakdown of such arrangements. I am no more impressed when the Home Secretary says:
  "If you talk to the public, they understand that you cannot have a police officer walking up and down their street all day and every day. You never had that. That was a myth about what happened in some golden age."
  However, the Home Secretary gives a self-evidently absurd example. Of course there never was an age in which every street was constantly patrolled. Everyone knows that. Everyone agrees with that, but there was a time when there were more police patrols than there are now, and when chief constables did not have to envisage local authority patrols in their town centres.
  The Government's reply, which we heard again today, is that that has nothing to do with them—it is all up to the chief constables and the police authorities. The fact is that for the Metropolitan police, the Home Secretary is the police authority. He must have a view. He should have

  1111
  a view on police numbers nationally as well. One of the key objectives that he sets the Metropolitan police is to provide high-visibility policing to reassure the public.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just numbers, but the abandonment of areas? In my constituency in Essex, we face the closure of a police station in Ingatestone, and the removal of policing from rural areas right across the constituency. As a police officer remarked to me, we will simply move crime around the rural areas.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Essex force is one of those that has been badly affected by the settlement. My hon. Friend, typically, raises an important issue for his constituency. I know from my postbag that the same complaint is repeated time and again around the country. It is not confined to Essex or the home counties. The Government should wake up to the complaint coming from ordinary people throughout the country.
  Those people will not support a policy of smaller police forces, with fewer policemen and policewomen on patrol, and with substitute inadequate patrols set up to fill the gap. The public do not want that, nor do the police. It would weaken the link between police and public, and it would diminish the reputation of the police service in this country.
  We will oppose the order this afternoon. We will oppose further reductions in the police service. The Government constantly speak about manifesto pledges and the mandate that they have. One thing is certain: they have no mandate to reduce the strength of the police service.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall raise the problems faced by the Dyfed-Powys police authority, the police force that has responsibility for my constituency, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and the whole of west and mid-Wales.
  The increase in funding that the Dyfed-Powys police authority will have for the coming year raises considerable concern, I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The increase can hardly be described as an increase at all. It is close to a standstill or—to use the word in vogue—stability.
  Many figures are bandied around about the efficiency of police forces, and one sometimes treats them with scepticism. However, as I understand it from those who are experts in such figures and targets, the Dyfed-Powys police force probably has the highest crime detection rate of any force in England and Wales. It is also probably one of the most efficient police forces, if not the most efficient, in England and Wales.
  The published increase in funding is to be 0.8 per cent., but that figure should be halved. I am told that 0.4 per cent. of the increase relates to additional and improved security at ports in the county of Pembrokeshire. Hon. Members will understand that. The increase is thus a mere 0.4 per cent., against a general inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. I would not argue that every public authority should have an increase corresponding to the general rate of inflation, but the Chancellor's target for inflation is 2.5 per cent. The figures provided to me by the chief constable are for an increase of 0.4 per cent.
  1112
  The national increase for the entire police settlement is, as I understand it, 2.6 per cent.—my hon. Friend said 2.7 per cent. Against that figure, I argue that an increase of 0.4 per cent. is extremely low and, indeed, dangerous. The annual budget is £50 million, and the 0.4 per cent. increase comes to £200,000—merely a standstill, and not enough to enable the force to maintain its efficiency.
  My hon. Friend made much of the 2 per cent. efficiency savings. He mentioned a global figure that could be reinvested. What would the figure be for the Dyfed-Powys police authority, if it must absorb that 2 per cent? As it is already extremely efficient, it will be difficult to extract another 2 per cent.
  The Dyfed-Powys force will face considerable problems. Next year the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will have to be absorbed into the system, which will cost money. Sadly, in west and mid-Wales, there is an increase in drug activity. Cases involving heroin and crack cocaine are causing grave concern to the chief constable. No doubt similar problems exist in other parts of the country, but we have not experienced them before in west Wales. If there are cuts in funding, there will have to be cuts in policing. I do not know what effect the settlement will have. Perhaps a number of police constables will be lost.
  My hon. Friend, in an engaging and interesting speech, got himself a little lost when he rightly told us that more money does not mean that police forces will be more efficient. I entirely accept that one cannot just throw money at a problem, but I am not sure where his logic, or the lack of it, led him then. Certainly one member of the Bar is not the right person to criticise another member of the Bar for sophistry. I shall be kind and say that, at that point in his speech, my hon. Friend was at least verging on sophistry and casuistry, but perhaps one should not say any more about that.
  There will have to be cuts. Perhaps they will not fall on police constables; perhaps they will be across the board. But they will have some effect on my excellent police force, which is probably one of the most efficient in the country. Formulae and needs assessments come and go, but Ministers are there to rise above these algebraic equations sometimes and determine these matters. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. The consequence will be that the battle against crime in mid and west Wales will, next year, be less effective.
  There is a further consequence. If a force as efficient as Dyfed-Powys is not given any more money, people will start to wonder what is the point of being more efficient, and having better and better target figures for the clean-up of crime as next year they will have less money. I am sure that people will not stop trying to be more efficient, but people do feel that way. Even if the chief constable does not feel like that and operates in a wholly rational way, people lower down may feel that way, and that is bound to affect the morale of an excellent police force.
  Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to look at the matter again. I know that Back Benchers always say that they are not talking about large sums of money—but in this case, I am not. At the margin, it is a little sum for the Government but, at the margin, it is a considerable

  1113
  amount for the Dyfed-Powys police force. I ask my hon. Friend to set aside these quadratic equations, these formulae, and try to transcend them a little—
  Mr. Boateng: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: In a moment. My hon. Friend has had 45 minutes. He made a theatrical speech, but who am I, as a member of the Bar, to complain about that either?
  I ask my hon. Friend to set aside these quadratic equations and to exercise some ministerial discretion.
  Mr. Boateng: I have enormously enjoyed my right hon. Friend's important contribution. If I may address him not as a member of the Bar, but as a former Treasury Minister—a distinguished former Treasury Minister—I must say that it is a little disingenuous to suggest that it is possible to put aside the equations and the formulae in the way that he suggests. He knows that a needs-based formula has winners and losers. Of course, it is sad when one's own authority is a loser, but I am sure that he will recognise the force of a needs-based formula of this sort.
  Mr. Davies: I was coming to an end. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has raised the question of Treasury Ministers. I thought that he must have been a Treasury Minister when I heard parts of his speech. He said that money is bad for one; that one does not need any money. He implied that if we give more money, less crime will be detected. From the way that he spoke, I thought that my hon. Friend had done the tour d'horizon of the Treasury and was now back at the Home Office. Even former Treasury Ministers perhaps would not speak as he did. He told us we do not need money; we can become more efficient. That may be, but Dyfed-Powys is an efficient force. It now needs a little bit more money to make it more efficient in future and to reduce the crime level in my constituency.
  2.44 pm
  Sir David Madel: This speech is a last minute appeal to the Minister to rebalance the settlement, which, as it is now constructed, leaves Bedfordshire in an extremely difficult position. But I start by thanking him and his civil servants for their courtesy and willingness to listen when we in Bedfordshire went to see them. They gave us plenty of time and we were grateful for the opportunity to put our case. One of the civil servants present was from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I shall say something about that later.
  The Bedfordshire police force recognises that, in any settlement, there will be winners and losers, but we cannot understand why we have come off worst in the country. The increase for Bedfordshire is only 0.8 per cent. The national average is 2.7 per cent. But among our neighbouring counties, Cambridgeshire has had an increase of 3.9 per cent., Northampton 3.7 per cent. and Suffolk 4.1 per cent. They have thus had increases above the national average. I do not accept for a minute that those counties need increases so far ahead of Bedfordshire in order to deliver an acceptable level of policing.
  1114
  Next door to us are Milton Keynes and Thames Valley with an increase of 2.4 per cent. That is certainly part of history. As always, Milton Keynes gets its good fair share of state spending, to the detriment of Bedfordshire. Why it wants to burst into Bedfordshire and take part of our area, I simply do not know, but this is the wrong debate for raising that.
  If the 0.8 per cent. is turned into cash, it is £0.5 million. Given our pension problems, the salaries and the wage settlements, and the percentage that has to go on them, we cannot make a saving of £3.2 million without major manpower surgery, both officer and civilian. When we went to see him, the Minister listened carefully and courteously to the Unison representative from Bedfordshire who explained what effect the settlement would have on Unison members in Bedfordshire.
  We were not sitting around in Bedfordshire last summer thinking, "Oh well, we'll get plenty of money." We were planning for a reduction: for a worst case scenario. We were planning for a £2 million reduction. Last summer, the authority started work identifying cuts and effecting efficiency savings, but in their wildest dreams, the police authority and those interested never imagined that the cut would be £3.2 million.
  The unfairness of the settlement is deeply felt in Bedfordshire in view of the successes that we have had and have had recognised in the past two to three years by Her Majesty's inspectorate and the district auditor, as shown by the figures themselves.
  The detection rate, which increased from 21 per cent. to 35 per cent., did not just happen—it was hard won. The primary detection rate now stands at 29 per cent., domestic burglary has been reduced by 25 per cent. and non-domestic burglary by 50 per cent. Motor vehicle crime has been reduced by 30 per cent. As the Minister knows, Luton rests on Vauxhall's ability to produce many cars, so we are a high car-owning county. The detection rate for motor vehicle crime has risen from 11 per cent. to 25 per cent. One could go on putting such figures to the Minister, but I know that he is familiar with them.
  The Prime Minister said that success in policing would be rewarded. Alas, we have not had a reward. Those improvements have not been achieved by Bedfordshire police alone. The police-business partnership has been an example for the country—a fact that has been recognised by the National Lottery Charities Board. The partnership work extends to Homewatch, of which Bedfordshire is one of the leaders nationally, Victim Support and the Luton crime reduction partnership. The development of all those organisations in Bedfordshire is such that few opportunities exist for them to bid for additional funding, as they are so very far advanced.
  The Minister will know of the Leighton Buzzard crime prevention panel. Leighton Buzzard, like all Bedfordshire towns, has a rapidly growing population. Leighton Buzzard's concern is that the cuts in the police budget are not self-contained but will have a knock-on effect on other areas involving partnership with the public.
  Moreover, if the reward for increased effectiveness is reduced funding—the Bedfordshire police force was one of the most successful in the country last year at reducing and detecting crime—the willingness of individuals to take part in partnership activities may well be reduced. Morale is extremely important in voluntary activities. Without a good community spirit, it would be far easier

  1115
  for members of the crime prevention panel to concentrate on purely local Homewatch affairs than to spend time on projects of benefit to the community as a whole. Community partnership needs to be fostered, and arbitrary cuts, apparently unrelated to proven increases in efficiency and effectiveness, are not the way to do that.
  The immediate future for the Bedfordshire police authority and Bedfordshire police looks bleak, and there is a strong feeling that there has been a great deal of unfairness, given the circumstances that we are in. All we ask is to be treated as others have been treated and to be given equitable treatment.
  An increase in council tax is not the way out of this problem. An increase of 2.5 per cent. in spend would be considered quite reasonable by people in Bedfordshire, but when they realise that, because of the peculiar gearing, that translates into a council tax increase of 16.5 per cent., they certainly will not be prepared to accept such an increase for one moment.
  We are constrained by the gearing of the system: we cannot shove up council tax in order to continue the good work that we do with the police. I ask the Minister whether, even at this later hour, there could be some marginal relief for Bedfordshire this year or, at the very worst, whether a means could be found of spreading the reduction over a longer period.
  I should say a word about the DETR official who was present at the meeting. We in Bedfordshire are doing what people in Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire are doing; we are helping London with its housing. We do not have a standstill population, by any means. As the tragic deindustrialisation of Dunstable goes on, houses spring up like daffodils in April when the firms have gone, so we have to make police numbers keep pace with increases in population.
  The Minister knows that. He once stood as a candidate for Hemel Hempstead which, as he also knows, is, to a great extent, about helping London with its housing. Londoners who move to Bedfordshire and to other places expect policing, and police numbers, to be as good as in London's. We in Bedfordshire are therefore somewhat puzzled at the Metropolitan police service's special payment, which has gone up by 16.5 per cent.
  This is a terribly disappointing settlement and I am afraid that the Minister cannot match his great courtesy with some practical help and action for Bedfordshire. Let me give one fact and make one prediction. Here is the fact: between March 1979 and March 1997, police strength in Bedfordshire increased by 192, from 902 to 1,094; between March 1997 and September 1998, that strength fell by 43, from 1,094 to 1,051—backwards with Labour.
  I remember when Labour activists, some of whom I see in the streets and some of whom come to my surgeries, ran around my constituency with propaganda leaflets saying, "You'll be safer under Labour. We'll do better on the police." They do not say that now; when I see them in the streets, they have a look of injured guilt on their faces because of what has happened.
  I think that—deep, deep down—the Minister knows that we should have a better deal. I have given a fact, and I said that I would also make a prediction. Here it is: the headlines in the local papers in Bedfordshire in May will read, "Heavy losses for Labour in the local council elections." We will all know what has caused that.
  2.53 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because tackling the problems of crime and disorder is probably the No. 1 issue in Salford, the city that I represent. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is about to leave the Chamber, so I say to him that I was absolutely amazed by his contribution, which was almost obsessed with numbers. The number that he failed to mention was the doubling of crime that he and the previous Conservative Government presided over during the past few years.
  I invite the right hon. Gentleman to come to my city to witness the results of the Tory years. Crime and disorder have escalated almost out of control, people are often under siege and there has been a huge increase in burglary, robbery and violent crime. That is the legacy of the Tory Government, and his use of numbers was very selective indeed. We should concentrate not on numbers, but on how effective and efficient we are in providing policing.
  I welcome the settlement. The national increase is 2.7 per cent., which will give us an extra £1.25 billion of expenditure over the next three years and will enable police forces to plan ahead. The ability to look ahead with regard to the needs of our communities, and to plan for the policing that will meet those needs, has been lacking.
  Unlike Bedfordshire, the increase in Greater Manchester is slightly above the national average, at 2.9 per cent. I am delighted—[Interruption.] It is not a matter of luck. I am delighted that police resources are being targeted on the areas of greatest need. Resources will always be limited, but we need to target the resources that we have on the areas with the highest crime.
  I speak for many Greater Manchester Members of Parliament when I say that we have been concerned about the way the budget process has proceeded in the past year. There have been a number of scare stories in the community that we faced budget cuts of £15 million or £18 million and that front-line policing would be slashed. Those stories have caused huge concern to the public, and a great deal of concern to the staff involved, but when the police authority examined its budget—rigorously and in detail—and got down to the nitty-gritty of where it was spending its money, it was able to make £10.5 million of efficiency savings.
  The police authority told me yesterday that it will be able to live within the settlement, without any reductions in front-line operational policing. What matters to the people whom I represent is that the police are there, making the community safe. The authority proposes to restructure the tactical vehicle crime unit and to deliver off-road motor cycling facilities through other people. It has looked again at its cleaning and catering services, it has reviewed the traffic warden service and it has even restructured the mounted unit. I hope that nothing painful has been done to the horses.
  That shows that, with imagination and creativity, we can reduce expenditure on services, but that need not affect the front-line policing of our communities. It shows what can be done, if we have the time to do it. The difficulty is that these things are done hastily, and not in the best way, when people budget from year to year or from month to month. The Audit Commission report estimates that this country could save up to £80 million

  1117
  in procurement, contracting, sharing training and sharing equipment if we thought about doing things in a different, more creative way.
  This is new ground for many police authorities. They have not had to face the same pressures on their budgets as many local authorities have had to face over the past 20 years. It is a challenge for them to get down to the detail of their budgets and examine what they are spending their money on.
  The Government, by introducing the best value scheme, are giving police authorities the tools to do the job. I am delighted that the Greater Manchester police area is piloting the best value scheme, and I am even more pleased that F division in Salford is one of the four target divisions where the scheme is moving on apace. The schemes are asking fundamental questions such as, "Should we be carrying out this function? How are we delivering the objectives that we want to achieve, and at what cost? How are our neighbours performing in each of these service areas and how can we ratchet up our performance to meet the standards of the very best?"
  That is a methodical and rigorous approach. It has taken far too long for it to arrive, in terms of maximising the effectiveness of the money spent on policing. People in my community are crying out for more effective and more efficient policing that they are able to see in action. The best value scheme has smart objectives, which are supposed to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely. As well as smart objectives, I hope that we achieve some very smart policing in the city over the next few years.
  We should also be asking some more fundamental questions about the role of the police. Should highly trained and expensive police officers be carrying out routine traffic duties such as monitoring speed traps, which we see around us every day? We should not shy away from such questions and it cannot be right that only the police can carry out certain sacrosanct functions. Provided that we have sufficient safeguards, and provided that we have thought the system through, we must be imaginative and open our minds to different ways of doing things.
  Many of my constituents are absolutely enraged when they see six or seven police officers conducting an operation on illegal parking in an affluent part of our borough when they find it difficult to get the police to respond to violent incidents of crime and disorder in the inner city. We must look at our policing priorities. Should the police escort heavy loads on motorways? Should officers police football matches? Should they look after stray dogs or stray people who turn up on their doorstep? It is incumbent on us all to maximise the effect that we achieve from public expenditure, and the police should not be an exception.
  The new powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will be absolutely crucial in helping us to rebuild the safety of our communities. The new range of tools that we have under that Act—the anti-social behaviour orders, parenting orders and reparation orders—are key to rebuilding the inner cities. I fear, however, that unless we free up resources by analysing what we spend our money on now, we shall not have the money to implement the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 fully, and to obtain the maximum benefit from the new tools that are at our disposal.
  1118
  I do not think that we can have "business as usual" in the police force. It must be said that, in some police forces, that simply is not working. Greater Manchester police are improving their detection rate, but they still detect only about 20 per cent. of crime; the national average is 26 per cent. The detection rate for burglary is only 11 per cent., while the national average is 17 per cent. It has risen in recent years, which shows the low base from which we are starting, but the fact remains that performance is not good enough. We must try to ratchet up standards, and ensure that we deliver high-quality services. Our ratio of police to public is higher than the national ratio, but I think that highlights the issue. We are talking not just about numbers, but about how those involved are working, the operations in which they are engaged and how those operations are managed and monitored. That is what delivers the return for our investment.
  I want to mention a couple of innovations in F division in Salford which I consider very exciting. The first pathfinder initiative for the new operational policing strategy involves taking officers out of headquarters and on to the streets, and making them take "ownership" of their neighbourhoods. A sergeant and six police officers are now dedicated to each of our neighbourhoods. They have a personal responsibility for every rise in crime; as for reductions in crime, they have a stake in the results that they are able to achieve. That could almost be described as a revolution in policing. The community now sets the priorities, and the police—along with their local-authority, business and voluntary-sector partners—help to deliver what is required. That is the sort of high-value, high-quality policing that we want, and this Government are helping us to achieve it.
  Salford has just been allocated part of the burglary initiative moneys that will protect the most vulnerable people in my community. Some 4 per cent. of people in this country are victims of 42 per cent. of recorded crime, which is shocking. People in inner cities, and in constituencies such as mine, suffer a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. Measures such as the burglary initiative, which is intended to make their homes and communities safer, can help to protect them.
  Today's debate is about spending our money wisely and well. In that context, I feel compelled to bring to the Minister's attention an important issue that has come to light in Greater Manchester over the past week. It has featured in our local newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, and apparently, for the past 12 months the Audit Commission has been investigating it—investigating, that is, alleged mismanagement and waste involving important contracts in the Greater Manchester police area.
  It is alleged that the construction of the new crime squad headquarters at Bradford park in Manchester has exceeded its budget by £3 million; that it was necessary to tear out inappropriate equipment, which has cost a further half a million pounds; and that expensive consultants were engaged at a cost of £1.5 million, without compliance with European tendering procedures. All that is of great concern to the people of Greater Manchester.
  We are hard pressed enough to need to secure good value from our expenditure. If there is any question of waste or mismanagement in the police force, I ask the Minister to investigate, and ensure that appropriate action is taken. Yesterday I spoke to the chair of the police

  1119
  authority, who gave me an undertaking that the police authority would act swiftly and decisively, and that there would be full and public debate as soon as possible. These matters must not be covered up; they must be properly exposed and investigated.
  Finally, let me raise one or two long-term issues that the Government must address if we are to continue to make progress in the policing of our area. The first is police pensions. I know that it affects everyone in the country, but I must point out that, in 1986, police pensions in Greater Manchester cost £12.7 million—7.6 per cent. of the total budget. This year, the cost has risen to the astronomical figure of £59.2 million, 16 per cent. of the budget. That is a doubling in real terms, and constitutes a huge amount to find.
  We also need to review the reasons for many retirements and pension increases, to manage sicknesses and medical retirements, and to ensure that our police forces are monitoring such developments as rigorously as possible. Given that pension costs are likely to rise by another £8 million next year, and by a further £10 million the year after that, the issue is clearly important.
  The second issue is the renewal of the public communications system in Greater Manchester. At present, we use local wavelengths, which costs us about half a million pounds. In future, there is to be a nationally imposed system. I understand that the annual running cost will be about £8 million, and that the capital cost has been estimated at about £22 million. Those are large sums for a police authority to find. I understand that our police authority will be asking for a meeting with Ministers in the next few months to discuss some of the larger-term issues, and I hope that it will be possible to arrange such a meeting. Another issue that concerns us is the policing of the Commonwealth games in Manchester.
  As I said at the outset, nothing is more important to the people of Salford than effective, efficient policing that will help to provide a safe community. Certainly, today's settlement will help my police authority to establish the necessary structure. The requirements are demanding and challenging, but they do not come before time. We must ensure that the police, like everyone else, provide value for money, and that we obtain the maximum return for every investment that we make.
  The Government have said that there will be extra funds, but it is something for something, not something for nothing. We must ensure that we deliver efficiency, effectiveness and value for money—and then the Government will support the police. We are determined to tackle the Tory legacy of crime and lawlessness in our cities. The statistic that we should never forget is this: crime doubled under the Tory Government, and that is what we must deal with now.
  3.6 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: This is a short debate on a big subject. I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who always manages to deliver a large amount of information in a relatively short time. I am particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not manage to escape without being given his share. I certainly agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments with regard to the last Government's performance, although I disagree with her about the nature of the settlement. I shall
  1120
  say more about that later. I accept that she is sincere in wanting better policing in her area, but I do not believe that the settlement will lead to that.
  I had hoped to return upstairs with the Minister and others for some more gentle consideration of sexual offences, but I understand that is now not going to happen—although we shall not have any more time for our debate in the Chamber. [Laughter.] When I say "upstairs", I mean "in Committee". I am glad that the debate so far has not become too partisan, except in regard to police numbers. I am not ashamed of my wish to dwell on that issue, as it is a key issue for my colleagues and me. The number of police officers has fallen by 781 since the general election, and we predict a further fall of at least 500 over the coming years following our analysis of the facts and of the implications of settlements under the last Government.
  I was interested to learn that the Minister now believes that arguments about numbers are sterile and simplistic. I assume that they were not sterile and simplistic when they were employed by Labour spokesmen in opposition. I am thinking in particular of the current Secretary of State for Wales who, as recently as 1996, used similar arguments against the Tory Government.
  The Government certainly deserve praise in one respect: they have learnt lessons from previous political mistakes. They decided not to make any commitment on numbers, because they saw what political difficulties that would cause. We heard a bizarre argument from the Minister about the Home Secretary's powers to dictate or not. He seemed to want a return to the former position—[Interruption.] Perhaps I misunderstood. He seemed to want to disclaim responsibility because he no longer had the power, but did not go as far as committing himself to taking the power back.
  We find ourselves in a looking-glass situation. I think that, if my mathematics is correct, it would be possible to spin the Chamber round 180 degrees to hear arguments opposite to those advanced in 1995 and 1996, before the change of Government, from hon. Members on both sides of the House. What we have learnt in this debate is that, while the Conservatives tried to increase police numbers and failed abjectly, the current Labour Government are simply refusing to make any commitment to increase them.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman speaks of abject failure. Does he deny that, under the last Conservative Government, police numbers increased by 15,300?
  Mr. Allan: I was referring to the period between 1992 and 1997, which is recent enough to judge the performance of the previous Government.
  Mr. David Heath: Having been a chairman of a police authority during the period of the previous Government, having gone every year to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to say that we needed more police in Avon and Somerset, and having received every year the answer, "No," may I corroborate the points that my hon. Friend makes? Police numbers did fall.
  Mr. Allan: That is true. In 1992, the previous Government made a clear commitment, of which the

  1121
  Labour party in opposition enjoyed reminding them at the time, that they would increase police numbers by 1,000 over their period in office; they fell by 500. It is fair to say that that commitment was broken.
  Perhaps one of the most amusing pieces of evidence that we have had in the debate was the Home Office press release that talked about a "fair and challenging settlement", which is a triumph of the spin doctors' art. "Challenging" is not the adjective that would have been used by Labour in opposition to describe the settlement. In essence, challenging means that it will be extremely difficult for police forces to meet their targets with the settlement. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has already referred to the Police Federation. Other organisations do not describe the settlement as challenging. They use much stronger language.
  I should like the Minister to confirm a point of detail, if that is possible; she can certainly do so in her winding-up speech. We have examined the figures and believe that they represent an increase for this year of only £176 million, with the extra £10 million that has been factored into the Home Office press release being forms of grant other than police standard spending.
  We believe that that gives an inflated impression of the settlement, which we calculate represents an increase in real terms of only 0.001 per cent—1,000th of 1 per cent.—not the 0.1 per cent. real-terms increase that the £186 million figure would give. Again, there has been manipulation to make the settlement appear better than it is.
  When we look at the next few years of settlements, the picture is no rosier. Although the comprehensive spending review is trumpeted in many other service sectors, it does not give a particularly good deal to the police. As I have said, our estimate is that, over the coming years, police numbers will fall yet further under the figures in the CSR.
  Mr. Brake: Is my hon. Friend aware that, yesterday, Sir Paul Condon estimated that Metropolitan police numbers would probably fall by about 100 in the next year?
  Mr. Allan: As we all know, the Met has taken the brunt of the cuts so far. That further cut will come when we are trying to introduce new measures. We have heard evidence of the things that have happened in New York, where they have been able to increase police numbers and succeed in their aims. It will worry all Londoners to hear that further cuts in the Met are forecast.
  We have looked at the things that the police force will face in coming years and will have to cope with. Policing the millennium will obviously be a one-off in the next year, but the pensions issue is an on-going problem. As yet, there is no sign of an ultimate solution. So long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to hit police budgets. I understand that the auditors have expressed significant concern about the level of police budget reserves because they have been spending over and above what they should—in particular, to meet the costs of pensions.
  The ability to put in new information technology systems is important. I was interested to hear the Minister refer to his visit to Stonehouse in Gloucestershire to look at some of them, but the response from the chief constable
  1122
  of Gloucestershire police in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) does not paint such a rosy picture on what it is able to do. He says:
  "The latest settlement is a very tough one for the Gloucestershire Constabulary. We have been allocated substantially less money than we had feared we would be allocated."
  He says that there are severe funding problems in Gloucestershire, so at the same time as we hear praise for those exciting new initiatives—we all want to see them happen and succeed—practitioners on the ground tell us that it is a difficult settlement. We have to ask how far they can continue to innovate given such funding pressures.
  We are concerned about the transfer of costs from central Government to the local taxpayer. Again, the Labour party in opposition was robust on the issue, accusing the previous Government of a con when they announced settlements that increased the standard spending assessment for the police, but kept the police grant increase relatively low, so that the costs were passed on to the taxpayer.
  Again, the chief constable of Gloucestershire police says that it will need a significant increase in its council tax contribution in the precepts—he talks about a 22 per cent. increase—to recover all the funds, which it is entitled to do. The Government need to be more explicit about who is actually paying for the settlement and about the fact that there will be an increase in taxation locally, which should not be hidden by the fact that they can say that general taxation nationally has not been increased, so taxes have not gone up. The Conservatives tried local tax increases year on year, and the Labour party in opposition rightly attacked them for it, yet we hear silence on the issue when it comes to this year's settlement.
  I refer to those who have criticised the settlement. The Association of Chief Police Officers was robust on the issue:
  "Let's be realistic. Government cannot expect any public service, least of all the police, with their wide responsibilities, to meet all the public's expectations with such a shortfall. Law and order is a high public priority. This settlement means the Service may have to cut back its front-line services."
  The association is not talking about administration or back-room staff. I do not think that it is talking about traffic wardens putting tickets on cars. It is talking about front-line policing services. ACPO believes that cuts there may be the consequence of the settlement.
  Again, the Association of Police Authorities, which does much work in the sector, has been clear about its view:
  "The overall national increase of 2.75 per cent. in police spending is less than half what the APA calculates forces need to maintain their present levels of service."
  With all the pressures that I have talked about, forces need twice the settlement that they have been given. Costs that simply cannot be avoided—police pay and pensions—are not covered by the latest settlement. The Association of Police Authorities, which has to set the budgets and which has the greatest in-depth knowledge of how police budgets work, is making a clear statement that the settlement is not enough.
  The police have a vital role to play in fighting both crime and the fear of crime. We have been clear about the role of police officers on the beat in combating fear of crime. We believe that the Government share our

  1123
  objective of combating fear of crime. We wholeheartedly support some of the developments recently through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local policing audits—the crime audits—and local community safety plans, which are wonderful innovations, but we want the police to have the resources to implement them. Our greatest fear is that public expectation has been built up by the Government and that the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means to support the police. On that basis, we feel unable to support the police settlement.
  3.17 pm
  Maria Eagle: I wish to raise an issue of general public importance that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), but in respect of a more specific example. The issue is how police authorities account to the public for the way in which they spend their money and how transparently they do so.
  The example involves South Yorkshire police and the on-going reverberations following the Hillsborough disaster, which happened almost 10 years ago; I am sorry that they are still going on, but they are. This is a matter of great importance to the people of Merseyside and my constituents, even though it relates to the South Yorkshire police authority; it also illustrates the more general point of public interest that I wish to raise.
  A number of my constituents are families bereaved as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. I know that they feel that, after all this time, the full truth of what happened has still not emerged. They feel that they have still not had the answers to all the questions that they have raised and that they have never received justice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she may be labouring under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order, which is confined to consideration of the size and distribution of the grants that are proposed in the report before the House. I am not sure that she can extend quite into the area that she thought she might.
  Maria Eagle: I hope that I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the scope of the order. Of course, I will be guided by you, if you feel that I cannot, but I felt that I needed to set scene. I wish to discuss the way in which South Yorkshire police authority is spending its grant and the value for money that that spending represents. If you wish, I could move straight on to that, although, without a little background. hon. Members may find it a little more difficult to follow my points. Obviously, I am willing to be guided by you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she must keep within the spirit and scope of the debate. She can give a short preface to the point, but then I must require her to come well within the terms of the order.
  Maria Eagle: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Following the scrutiny of the evidence surrounding the Hillsborough disaster, a vast volume of documentation was placed in the Library. As a result of information arising out of that documentation, the families of the
  1124
  victims decided that they wanted to conduct some private prosecutions of retired officers, Mr. Duckenfield and Mr. Murray, of South Yorkshire police—now long retired. I want to raise the way in which the defence of those cases is being funded by South Yorkshire police, whether it is transparent and whether it is an effective use of money.
  Those two defendants have the same rights to a proper defence as anyone else accused of criminal offences, funded publicly if that is necessary. The legal aid fund exists to facilitate just such cases. Also, I have no objection to the general policy operated by most police authorities. They take the view that it is proper to spend some of the money allocated to them in their grant to fund, in appropriate circumstances, the defence of police officers accused of criminal offences. I am aware that there is Home Office guidance in relation to just that issue, considering when and whether funding of that nature should be provided. It is for the chief constable to decide whether it should. We can all think of circumstances in which the funds should be provided—for example, when an officer is accused of a criminal assault when making an arrest and is then pursued by private prosecution. There are some clear cases on which we could all agree, but there are some circumstances in which the money should not be provided.
  In this case, the officers concerned retired on health grounds. In one case there were serious outstanding disciplinary offences and, in the other, the disciplinary offences were dropped because of the retirement of the other officer. The officers concerned and the force were severely criticised by Lord Taylor in the public inquiry following the disaster. He said that the main cause of the disaster was a loss of police control.
  As a result of the retirements, nobody within the police force was ever held to account for that loss of control. That is one of the main reasons why the families concerned still feel a grievance.
  I recognise that some hon. Members may disagree with me and that there are arguments on both sides about whether funding should be forthcoming, even though we may all agree that there are some circumstances in which it should. If there is a decision to provide funding in such a case, it has implications. The funding as it appears to have been granted in this case is without limit. The force has made it clear that it intends to fund the defence right through to the final trial. The funding has been provided without proper review or checks for value for money being put in place. It seems to have priority over all other policing issues. The many members of the Bar who were referred to earlier could attest to the fact that the final cost could be millions of pounds. I am not exaggerating. I am not a member of the Bar, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady enough scope. She must now come to the substance of the matter before the House, which is the size and distribution of the grant to police forces for the coming year.
  Maria Eagle: My point is that, potentially, millions of pounds could be spent on those cases with no checks having been put in place, despite the fact that South Yorkshire police authority has written to the Home Office in respect of the adequacy of its funding for the coming year.

  1125
  I have a written answer which suggests that there has been a letter from the clerk to the South Yorkshire police authority raising a number of issues about the proposed funding settlement for the following year. That is in spite of the fact that the funds seem to have been provided without any proper checks or balances.
  I wrote to ask about any checks being placed on the potential spending by South Yorkshire police authority. I asked what procedures the authority and the force had put in place to ensure that the funds were spent appropriately and to ensure that they represented good value for money. I asked when the arrangements would be reviewed, given the open-ended nature of the commitment. I received a reply from the assistant chief constable which referred me to the clerk and treasurer of the police authority. Unfortunately, the reply from the police authority answers none of the questions that I raised.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will be able to refer to my points, at least in part, in her reply to the debate. Can she tell me how the Government can be assured that the police authority is spending its money appropriately and achieving value for money, since it has undertaken such an open-ended commitment while seeking further funds from the Government in order to carry out its basic duty, which is to provide policing services to south Yorkshire?
  3.25 pm
  Mr. John Horam: My constituency featured heavily in the Christmas television schedules in relation to crime and the police because the Christmas edition of the long-running and excellent series "The Bill" was shot on Orpington high street. If that was the only connection that my constituency had with the police, my constituents and I would be delighted. My constituents were thrilled to have the leading actors in the high street for quite some time.
  Of course, even in leafy Orpington, there is theft, burglary, violence and bad behaviour, as there is in every other constituency in the country. My constituents have been extremely concerned about the number of recent incidents, and many elderly residents, in particular, are concerned about the level of crime.
  I have two concerns. First, after several years of real progress in combating crime in Orpington and Bromley more generally, that great improvement seems to be being reversed. The figures for last year, which have only just been released, show an increase in crime, even in the Bromley division of the London area. It is a matter of great concern that things have suddenly begun to unravel in entirely the wrong direction.
  Secondly, police resources to deal with the increase in crime are being cut. As we know, the settlement for the Metropolitan division shows a cash increase of 1.7 per cent. That is not much for a cash increase. The real figure shows a substantial decrease after taking into account necessary increases in salaries, pensions and so on. We are facing not stability, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but a decrease in the provision for my area.
  This year—not just next year—the manpower available to the Bromley division decreased by 10. Over London as a whole, the number of police has decreased by 571 since
  1126
  the general election. During the debate, the Liberal Democrat spokesman said that it is expected to decline by a further 100 over the next 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out in an article in the Evening Standard only yesterday that the age profile of the Metropolitan police is such that the number leaving the force over the next few years will increase considerably. That, too, poses a potential crisis in London. All those factors are having an effect and are damaging people's confidence in the ability of the police to deal with crime effectively.
  There has been a major reorganisation in my area over the past two or three years. It is not a question of efficiency having been ignored and now suddenly being taken into account. That reorganisation affected all sectors of my constituency and Bromley more generally and we hoped that it would lead to more efficient situation for the police in which they could settle down and operate for some time with no further exhortations to reorganise even more.
  This is a short debate and we will not all get an opportunity to speak. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) want to be associated with my remarks.
  The current situation, together with the new settlement, will lead to a further reduction in the number of police in the Bromley area. We expect to lose another 10 officers in addition to the 10 that will have been lost by the end of March. Moreover, we are facing the possible closure of four police stations. We believe that two of those police stations, one in my constituency at Biggin Hill and one in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, are almost certain to close. Furthermore, we expect additional police station closures, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and another in my own constituency, at St. Mary Cray.
  The possibility of closing the St. Mary Cray station is very distressing, as it was opened in only 1992, after a long public campaign by me, the local newspaper and local councillors, to their credit. So, in 1992, we managed to obtain a new police station at St. Mary Cray; seven years later, we are faced with the closure of that self-same station. Closures are possible even in Bromley, which has hitherto been in a well-resourced part of London.
  The Minister will understand the dismay with which Opposition Members are greeting the Government's proposed settlement. Under the previous, Conservative Government, police resources, new police stations and police numbers all increased. Now, within 18 months of a Labour Government being elected, we are faced with the possibility of four police station closures, fewer police officers and an increase in crime. That is the reality facing Bromley.
  I am concerned also about the effect of the Government's changes on the community's institutional structures supporting efforts to deal with crime. As the Minister rightly said, fighting crime is a matter not only for police but for local authorities and local people. The effort to develop community action has been made faithfully for many years, at the behest of successive Governments, and has done well in Bromley.
  The focus of efforts to build a partnership in Bromley has been the Bromley police-community liaison group, which meets regularly. I attend its meetings, as do, my

  1127
  colleagues, local councillors and local people. The mood at its meetings has been grim. I received a report of the most recent meeting from a resident whom I know well, who is a responsible and public-minded person who does not reach judgments lightly. He said that
  "Overall the members of the public are not happy with the way the Group runs."
  He was referring to the liaison group, and continued:
  "While the police listen to what is said, there is seldom any sort of positive response which we would like…It seems that all we can look forward to is a continually diminishing police force even less able to enforce all the laws and discharge matters which they, and no one else, currently have responsibility for."
  The liaison group notes, among other things, that people are less willing than they were to turn out for consultative meetings. People no longer see the point of the meetings, at which police listen politely and all local concerns are voiced, but after which nothing happens. Police, quite frankly, say that they do not have the resources to respond to local concerns. That is the reality of life on the ground floor.
  I can only say to the Minister that the situation in my constituency paints a grim picture that does not offer much hope. I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in opposing the motion.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: In last year's police grant debate—in which I was, I think, the only Front Bencher now in the Chamber to participate—I warned that the Government's failure to provide adequate resources for our police service would result in fewer officers. We are now beginning to see the full realisation of that prediction.
  Since 1 May 1997, there are 780 fewer police officers. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) seemed to think that police numbers declined under the Tories. The fact is that the Greater Manchester force gained 500 more police officers during the Tory's 18 years in office. Now—already, since the general election—it has 30 fewer officers.
  The number of police officers leaving the police service grows daily, and those officers are not being replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) reminded us in his speech of the problems in the Metropolitan police.
  The settlement will make matters significantly worse. Clearly, a 2.7 per cent. increase is nowhere near enough to maintain the police service. Moreover, all police organisations are making the same gloomy forecast. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) reminded us, two months ago, the Association of Chief Police Officers warned that a 6.1 per cent. funding increase was necessary for police forces simply to maintain current services. I should remind the hon. Gentleman of how well his own police force, in South Yorkshire, did during the Conservatives' years in government, when that force increased by 600 officers.
  Chief constables have rightly questioned the basis for the Government's demand for 2 per cent. efficiency savings, whereas the independent Audit Commission—which the Minister prayed in aid—found scope for savings of only 0.25 per cent. Police superintendents are predicting significant manpower reductions—of
  1128
  thousands, not hundreds of officers. Across the country, one has only to tot up the manpower levels that police forces predict they will have in a year's time to realise that we are talking about manpower reductions of thousands, not hundreds, of officers.
  It is predicted that, by the end of this year, North Yorkshire will have 50 fewer police officers. North Yorkshire police comprise 1 per cent. of the police service. If its cuts were repeated across the country, there would indeed be 5,000 fewer officers nationally.
  It is predicted that there will be 100 fewer officers at Thames Valley police, which comprise just under 3 per cent. of the police service. A similar cut made nationally would entail 3,000 fewer officers.
  Police superintendents have branded the settlement as
  "the worst spending round in a generation".
  The grant shows a complete lack of political commitment to the police and demonstrates that police are not one of the Government's priorities. Ministers have the cheek to challenge us about providing resources to police. Special advisers, focus groups and lavish parties for pop stars at No. 10 Downing street are the Government's priorities, as are the more than 180 new task forces that the Government have established. Ministerial office refurbishments are the Government's priority, as is so much overseas travel by Ministers that some Ministers are refusing to answer questions about it, as we saw today. But the Government do not include the police service among their priorities.
  The Government are running down the police service—but why? What is the plan? Will beat officers be replaced, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asked earlier, by neighbourhood wardens? Will unemployed people be recruited to patrol local estates, with powers to intervene and arrest? The police service is predicting that that may happen.
  Mr. Boateng: Nonsense.
  Mr. Greenway: The police service is making such predictions to Opposition Members. It is what we have been told by Surrey's chief constable, the other Mr. Blair.
  Did the public vote for such changes? They were never asked about any such proposals. In her reply, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's hidden agenda. Surely Ministers cannot fail to notice the effects of their policies and mismanagement on the numbers of serving police officers.
  The Association of Police Authorities questioned how a cash increase of £186 million can pay for spending commitments of £438 million. Pay and pension costs alone will rise by £250 million. The fact is that the resources of 10 police authorities will grow by less than 2 per cent., and that they will face a stark choice between cuts in police numbers or a massive hike in council tax precepts—or both: fewer police at greater cost.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) reminded us of the plight of one of our smallest police forces, in Dyfed Powys, in west Wales, which has barely more than 1,000 police officers.

  1129
  The police authorities that will be worst affected by the settlement will be those that have already had a shake-out and made savings. How are they supposed to make further savings?
  The cuts will not be painless for anyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, police stations will close across south-east London. Cumbria—which is another of our smallest police forces—will close 10 stations. People may say, "Those will be mostly rural beat houses, which went in North Yorkshire more than 10 years ago." The Minister may think that that is the right approach, but it is not popular and results in a serious diminution of service.
  Some forces have already stripped out large numbers of senior ranks. There has been a reduction of approximately one in four ACPO ranks across the country, with 700 fewer superintendents in the past six or seven years. I am glad that the Minister agrees with that. As he told us earlier, a flattening out of the rank structure in the police service is needed. However, he should read the report of last year's debate. When I pointed that out to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), he bluntly disagreed.
  The Government are trying to have it both ways. It is on the record in Hansard that there was an increase of 2,300 in the number of constables between 1992 and 1997, but the Government and the Liberal Democrats trot out the statistic that the number of officers fell by 500. Of course that is the case, because 2,700 senior ranks were stripped out. Any further pressure for efficiency savings will result in fewer officers.
  Much of the restructuring that happened in the 1990s was a direct consequence of giving greater freedom to chief constables to manage their resources. The Minister could not tell us whether he agreed with that. Chief constables were enabled to do what was best for their force and their local needs. The Government have triggered off a frantic scramble to meet the straitjacket imposed by the requirement for 2 per cent. efficiency savings year on year, regardless of circumstances. The scope for saving varies from force to force, yet all must meet the same 2 per cent. target regardless.
  How will delivery of the 2 per cent. efficiency savings be judged? If it is not manpower-related, how else? Some 80 per cent. of police funding is spent on staff costs, most of which funds police activity. With very few exceptions, the police are unable to measure policing activity. How will years two and three be measured? How will the financial sanctions threatened by the Home Secretary work? They will be a double blow for already hard-pressed local communities, whose police force will be penalised. Given how much police spending goes on paying officers, is it any wonder that staff associations are questioning the Government's intentions on pay? Rumours are rife throughout the police service that the Government are set to renege on the pay formula that has lasted for 20 years. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this debate to give them some reassurance and deny the rumour?
  1130
  Memories of the collapse of police morale under the Labour Governments of the late 1960s and 1970s have been rekindled by the Government's obvious lack of commitment to the police service.
  Mr. Boateng: Get real.
  Mr. Greenway: The Minister should go and talk to the police service. I did so yesterday and was told
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister should not speak from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Greenway: Summing up the feelings of the police service, a serving officer told me that morale was at rock bottom and spiralling downwards. The House should take seriously the real danger of a demoralised police force. The only gainers from that will be the criminals, while the general public will be the losers—the people who were taken in by the language of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. They are beginning to see that "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was a slogan for opposition, but not a policy for government.
  Being tough on crime under Labour means releasing prisoners early to reoffend within 24 hours. We have warned for 18 months that that would happen. The Minister shakes his head, but it is happening. A prisoner released under tagging has reoffended within 24 hours. It is clear that he should never have been released.
  What about being tough on the causes of crime? The settlement shows that that has turned into being tough on the people who fight crime. The Government's comprehensive spending review, which lies behind the settlement, has resulted in a comprehensive betrayal of the police. By voting against the motion, we shall be urging the Government to think again.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us, four years ago, when the Home Secretary was the shadow Home Secretary, he sought to justify voting against the police grant settlement because he said that some police forces would have to cut numbers. That year the Government gave an increase in grant of nearly £295 million—50 per cent. more than the current Government say is acceptable. The Home Secretary's words should haunt him when we vote against the settlement. We shall do so, not just to register the deep-seated concerns of the police service, but because we believe that the people of this country do not want the police service to be cut to the bone.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, said just two afternoons ago that the Prime Minister was a prisoner of the mob mentality. The public have yet to realise the damage that the Government are doing to our police service. When they do, they will hold the Prime Minister responsible. Perhaps then Ministers may come to the House to announce a better settlement for our police.
  3.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): This has been an interesting and informative debate, although it has been slightly heated at times from the contributions of those on the Opposition Front Bench. We have heard a wide range

  1131
  of contributions, giving many examples of good practice in police forces throughout the country. This is an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members from across England and Wales to make their views known, as is right and proper. They are close to their local police force. They know what their officers are thinking and want to make those views known. I should like to respond to the questions that have been raised.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Kate Hoey: Not just at the moment. Let me get some way into my speech. I do not have a lot of time.
  The support for local police forces should not always be uncritical. It was interesting to hear some hon. Members recognise that perhaps the police had been insulated from the pressure that has been put on other parts of the public sector.
  The figures in the report represent a fair settlement for the police in 1999–2000—fair but challenging. We have heard about the financial pressures that individual police authorities are facing. I fully accept that some authorities have fared better than others. That is one of the effects of the funding formula that we inherited from the Conservatives. We continue to refine it and it now commands general acceptance in the police service. It is based on the relative needs of forces, so those faring less well can be reassured that a disappointing settlement in comparison with that of a neighbouring force is down to objective evidence, not the whim of Ministers.
  We have allowed the formula to operate objectively without political interference or tinkering and resisted the temptation to interfere with it or override it to produce results that Ministers might find more attractive for their area. The Metropolitan police—my local force and that of my hon. Friend the Minister—will get a funding increase of 1.7 per cent. next year, which is well below the national average. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's local police in Lancashire will get a funding increase of 1.9 per cent., which is again below the average. We have been scrupulous in avoiding subjective intervention in allocations to individual police authorities.
  The funding provided by central Government is not the end of the story. Forces will have more money at their disposal if they improve their performance and efficiency. Efficiency savings of 2 per cent. across total police authority spending represent about £140 million in cash terms—a significant sum by any standard. As we have heard already, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary have pointed to areas where significant improvements can be made, including better management of sickness or medical retirements and better use of assets. Changes in the rules on capital receipts mean that, for the first time, police authorities can reinvest in capital projects all that they generate from the sale of surplus assets.
  Police authorities can also consider increasing their spending a little more through the council tax. Unlike in previous years, they are not constricted by crude and universal capping limits.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the Gloucestershire police had one of the lowest settlements—an increase of only 1.4 per cent. Recently,
  1132
  the chief constable wrote to me saying that, in real terms, that represents a cut of 4 per cent. in its budget and that making that up fully would involve an increase in the council tax precept for the police of a staggering 27 per cent. I have written to the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has pushed the boat out too far.
  Kate Hoey: If the hon. Gentleman has written to me, I certainly have not received his letter. However, only yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister met the deputy chief constable, who is quite confident that the police will be able to manage on this year's difficult but challenging settlement.
  As I mentioned, there will be no capping. However, the Home Secretary expects police authorities to balance the needs of the force for extra resources with the interests of local council tax payers and set budgets that are responsible, prudent and do not impose excessive increases in council tax. The Home Secretary has asked me to point out that we shall be monitoring the position closely.
  Another innovation for next year is the link between the settlement and our commitment to improving police efficiency. We have set all police forces a target of 2 per cent. efficiency gains year on year. They will then be able to plough the money back into front-line policing. Hon. Members should understand that, for the first time, there is a real incentive to meet this modest target.
  Mr. Allan: The Minister gave us an assurance that in setting the budget using the formula, no account was taken of the political make-up of a particular area. Can she give us the same assurance in respect of the capping process—that the political complexion of an area will not affect the Government's consideration of whether or not to lift a cap?
  Kate Hoey: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even think that there is any political consideration in the capping formula.
  I shall now respond to some of the specific points that were raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—I have been practising pronouncing the name of his constituency, but I am not sure whether I have got it right—talked about his local police force in Dyfed Powys. He made an interesting speech, but he did not mention that his local police force has the lowest crime rate in the country and should be congratulated. It also has the highest percentage of crimes detected, and that is an excellent achievement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the previous Home Office Minister, listened to the concerns of the four Welsh forces and found additional money for them. As a result, the Dyfed-Powys force will receive an increase of 1.2 per cent. instead of 0.8 per cent. and that is a positive step. My right hon. Friend also asked about the 2 per cent. efficiency target. If his force were to achieve that target, it would have an extra £1 million to reinvest.
  The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) gave us a sincere presentation of the particular difficulties affecting Bedfordshire that he has discussed with my hon Friend the Minister of State. Bedfordshire has achieved success in fighting crime, although it has

  1133
  been affected by the formula. As I said, a formula means that some forces fare worse than others. However, the formula is based on population. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extra housing that is being built in his area. The formula is population based and so there is no doubt that any increase in the population will be reflected in the allocation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made a positive speech recognising that police forces sometimes need to be challenged. She raised questions about how the police work and whether more imaginative ways of working—and indeed the role of the police—should be examined. She saw what the Opposition did not see—that there needs to be a change in culture and we all have to work with the police to bring that about. Clearly, if there is mismanagement we shall look into it as it is a serious issue.
  As she has done on many occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) referred to Hillsborough. I do not want to get into that now, but she asked how we measure whether police grant has been used appropriately. That is a matter for the police authority and the district auditor.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) painted a grim picture of his area. I do not agree. There has been some exaggeration and I am absolutely confident that his area will respond to the settlement.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that tackling crime is not a job for the police alone. In many areas the police are already working in co-operation with local authorities and others to reduce crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has provided the police with new powers and opportunities. Working with the local community, they are able to focus responses and target local crime problems. The police are already doing an excellent job. The legislation means that crime can be tackled at its roots, in local communities. The police have a major part to play in that work.
  The settlement provides the police service with extra resources to carry on its excellent work in tackling crime and disorder in our towns and cities. It includes efficiency targets that will enable forces to focus their resources on meeting the concerns of local people. The Audit Commission report shows that success in solving crime does not depend solely in the numbers of police officers available. Partnerships, targeted policing, better use of information technology and the efficient use of available resources all have an important part to play in improving police performance.
  Both Opposition spokesmen were full of doom and gloom, particularly the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). However, police authorities across the country do not share that view. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no hidden agenda. Our only agenda is to tackle crime effectively. I know that the Opposition have a job to do, but I genuinely wish that they would work with us on that agenda to tackle crime and disorder because that is what the public want. The Government are confident that the police will rise to the challenge—it is a challenge—and show the public that they can deliver an effective, efficient and high-quality service. That is what we expect to happen, so we should like the House to support the settlement today.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 143.

  Division No. 57]

  [3.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainger, Nick

  Darvill, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ashton, Joe

  Denham, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dismore, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobbin, Jim

  Austin, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drew, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Efford, Clive

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Best, Harold

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vemon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  1135

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  Levitt, Tom

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Linton, Martin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lock, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Love, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Snape, Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  Soley, Clive

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McWalter, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  McWilliam, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Maxton, John

  Truswell, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Milburn, Alan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mountford, Kali

  Watts, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  White, Brian

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Norris, Dan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Wills, Michael

  Olner, Bill

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Wise, Audrey

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Worthington, Tony

  Pearson, Ian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Wyatt, Derek

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Plaskitt, James

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Pollard, Kerry

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  1136

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Allan, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Amess, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Leigh, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Lidington, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brake, Tom

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Madel, Sir David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Burns, Simon

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Burstow, Paul

  Moss, Malcolm

  Butterfill, John

  Norman, Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Oaten, Mark

  Öpik, Lembit

  Chope, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Paice, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paterson, Owen

  Collins, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Colvin, Michael

  Prior, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Randall, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Rendel, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Duncan, Alan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Evans, Nigel

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Faber, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Steen, Anthony

  Fraser, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gale, Roger

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Greenway, John

  Townend, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Trend, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Viggers, Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Walter, Robert

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wardle, Charles

  Harvey, Nick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Webb, Steve

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Whittingdale, John

  Horam, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Willetts, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Willis, Phil

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Key, Robert

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 179), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Local Government Finance
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 (HC 143), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 37) (HC 144), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98: Amending Report 1999 (HC 145), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I should remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr. Prescott: As this is to be a shorter debate than last year's, and as many hon. Members will wish to take part, I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
This year's settlement is the most generous for seven years, so it should not be too controversial—although I recognise that the settlement is never, ever enough. The House will recall that on 2 December, I set out my local government finance settlement proposals for England in 1999–2000. They included: the total amount of local authority spending to which the Government are prepared to contribute, known as total standard spending, which will increase from £48 billion to more than £50.5 billion, which is a rise of £2.6 billion, or 5.5 per cent.; the amount of Government grant support, which increases from £37.4 billion in 1998–99 to £39.5 billion; and some changes to standard spending assessments—the formulae used to distribute grant.
Two of the reports before the House contain my decisions following formal consultation on those proposals. The third report corrects an error made by the previous Government in 1996. I should like to spell out some facts about the settlement for 1999–2000.
There is more than £1.4 billion more for education, following the £835 million extra provided last year, and more than £500 million more for social services. Total standard spending is up by £2.6 billion—5.5 per cent., as I have said—compared with last year. Let us remind ourselves of the increases since the council tax came into being—just 0.9 per cent. in 1995–96, and 2.5 per cent. in 1997–98.
The average for the years under the previous Government was only 2.4 per cent. This year's increase is more than twice the average for all the years of the previous Administration.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done, but is he aware of representations by Oldham metropolitan borough, which feels that the changes made do not deal with all the anomalies in the area cost adjustment? The major problem is that SSAs, which were well worked out in the past, will be fixed for three years, creating anomalies during that

1139
period. I know that my right hon. Friend is investigating how he can improve matters, but is there no chance of making changes during that three-year period?
Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend will recall that I said in a previous debate that one of the three standard assessments that we are dealing with had to do with children's services. We have made a judgment on that and can address ourselves to it. The others deal with education and the area adjustments to which he has referred. It is difficult to reach agreement there, and I shall return to the point later. Something like 41 formulae apply, and quite radical changes and consequences flow. We have decided not to make a decision at the moment, but to continue discussions throughout the three years.
The next round of public expenditure commitments will start early in that period, and discussions on standard spending assessment will take place during that process, so we shall have had to reach some decision. I understand my right hon. Friend's concern, but when he hears hon. Members talking about the effects of the changes we have made to just one area, he will appreciate the difficulties that we must take into account if we want to reach a proper consensus.
Sir Paul Beresford: Many hon. Members on both sides are concerned about distribution. Would the Secretary of State comment on the apparent change in definition of SSAs contained in paragraph 3.2 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999/2000"?
Mr. Prescott: I shall come to the SSAs shortly if the hon. Gentleman will wait a little.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether what was said by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was correct? Is the Secretary of State ruling out any change in the area cost adjustment over the next three years? Is that the implication of his reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question?
Mr. Prescott: Let me be clear about that. We shall continue discussions, and I shall report back to the House each year on settlements. The hon. Gentleman should wait to see how far we get in those discussions. We have settled on the children's support schemes, and I shall deal with that point in a few moments. Every year, I shall come to the House to inform hon. Members on how far we have gone, and on how much further we may be able to progress.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: If these matters are so difficult—especially the area cost adjustment—why did the Prime Minister promise three days before the general election that he would change the area cost adjustment for 1998–99? He failed to do so, and now he is trying to set in stone that it should not change for a further three years.
Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the Prime Minister said exactly that. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] No, he did not. I do not want to get into a dispute over that. We intend, over our five-year period in Government, to deal with all the commitments in our manifesto, and even with
1140
the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Nearly two thirds of our manifesto commitments are already under way, which shows how good the Government's record is. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about trains?"] I do not think that trains can be blamed on me after the Conservative privatisation. The Tories will blame everyone, having decided that marriage is back in fashion and God knows what else they did not believe before.
Let me repeat what I said before I was rudely interrupted. There is more than £1.4 billion more for education, following the £835 million extra provided last year, and more than £500 million more for social services. Total standard spending is up by £2.6 billion—5.5 per cent.—compared with last year. Let us remind ourselves of how that compares with the 2.4 per cent. increase under the previous Administration. Twice as much is being made available in the most generous settlement given to local authorities for seven years. I see no one contesting that, although the opportunity is there for anyone who wants to jump in.
Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
Mr. Prescott: Thank you.
Mr. Blunt: The borough of Reigate and Banstead has had a real cut in its settlement because moneys have been raided out of flood defences. How does that fact square with the imposition of 2,600 homes on the borough in an area that is liable to flood? When it floods, will the Secretary of State return money to the borough to make up for its having been robbed from it now?
Mr. Prescott: The previous Administration held back money, never giving any for flood relief. They offered every reason as to why they could not pay out for that.
Mr. Blunt indicated dissent.
Mr. Prescott: I do not want to argue about flood relief, which is just one part of expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's authority, like all the others, will receive more than it did last year. That is a basic fact. Does he disagree with it?
Mr. Blunt indicated assent.
Mr. Prescott: Have a look at the figures and then apologise.
Mr. Richard Allan rose—
Mr. Prescott: I must get on. There is limited time for the debate. I am trying to give way, but I should like to continue.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise for intervening because I know that my right hon. Friend wants to make a short speech. Indeed, I wish to speak myself. I accept what he says, but for local authorities such as Leicester, the social services changes mean a reduction in revenue support of nearly £2.7 million. Does he accept that while we are still getting a real-terms

1141
increase, it is substantially below the national average? Can he offer any hope over the next 12 months that that imbalance will be addressed?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend has a fair point about what came out of the changes in standard spending assessment; it is one of the difficulties, and I shall come to it. We have listened to the arguments of hon. Members and found an extra £30 million to try to deal with that.
The settlement is the most generous since the introduction of council tax.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prescott: No. I must go on.
Most councils will do well out of this year's settlement, and some very well. The Government will put in £2 billion more in grant. That means council taxes need bear only a fair share of the spending increase. I recognise that while all education authorities will get more money, some will be hard pressed because of the SSA changes. As I explained in a written answer on 1 February, I have found extra money to help the most hard-pressed authorities with education and social service responsibilities. No authority will lose in cash terms.
Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman's reply on 1 February says that the additional grant is in respect of losses on the children's services element of the spending assessment. He then said that he would distribute a grant relating to total SSA. As a result, a county such as North Yorkshire will lose £3 million in cash on social services, largely because of a children's indicator, but get nothing at all from the £30 million. There is a dislocation between the reason for the money and its distribution.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties of damping in dealing with SSA. The previous Administration did little to help on that. [Interruption.] I am reminded that they did nothing. I was trying to be charitable because the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) understands the subject more than most of us. There are great difficulties.
I now come to the SSA and the consequential effects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). We cannot satisfy everyone when we begin to make changes. All we can hope for is fair criteria for distributing the money. That is what governed us on the matter.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon used to go through the yearly discussions with local authorities about the rate support grant and got a difficult ride at some meetings. That did not happen this year. It was quite boring because the authorities thought that the settlement was generous. The right hon. Gentleman's well-known reply was, "We got stuffed by the Treasury." I was not in that situation. We have done a lot better because our Treasury listened to our arguments.
We have announced the totals of SSAs for the next three years. Councils must recognise—I am sure that they do—that they should not expect to be able to deal with
1142
the problems of 18 years in one year. This three-year settlement, which the Local Government Association called for, means that councils can plan ahead now that they know there is a three-year period. They should plan for service improvements and for reasonable—not excessive—council tax increases.
We have considered representations about the SSA formula and there were three big issues about which many hon. Members were concerned. They were children's social services, where we proposed changes, additional education need, and the area cost adjustment, for both of which we propose no change. The basic principle of my proposals is to make the grant distribution fairer.
For both additional educational need and the area cost adjustment, we had many reform proposals to choose from. For example, we had 21 detailed options on area cost adjustment, but there was no clear front runner on merit or in terms of support from local government. It would not have been right to take decisions on the area cost adjustment and additional education needs now when it was clear that there were unresolved issues raised by local authorities which needed further work. If there is one area in which we should seek consensus, it is this because it affects so many local authorities and people.
The most significant change that I propose is to adjust the way in which we deal with children's social services. The change is based on extensive research and three years' discussion with local government. Even this change is not without controversy. The new formula for children's social services would not take into account ethnic minority populations. Some questioned whether that was fair and those voices have been heard in the Chamber. It is a matter that deserves the most careful consideration. However, detailed research showed that indicators of deprivation that can apply to all parts of the community are better than those that relate only to ethnic minorities. I have, therefore, confirmed that proposal.
I also confirmed the other proposals that I made on SSA on my 2 December statement to the House. When the SSA formula changes, there are winners and losers. I do not pretend that it is easy for the councils that lose, but I can at least say two things. First, the Government have not and would not adjust the SSA figures to favour councils because of their political leadership. Secondly, we have listened to the authorities that would lose most from their grants because of the change. Their views were expressed in the debate when I made my first announcement on the revenue support grant. I have, therefore, put £30 million more into the settlement and guarantee that all education and social service authorities will receive at least 1.5 per cent. more in grant in 1999–2000 than they did this year. That is an increase. It is an improvement on my original proposal to ensure that no authority loses grant. A little more than £2 million will have to be taken from the revenue support grant to help fund this.
Under the new grant, Brent, for example, will receive £2.4 million more than I proposed in December. West Sussex and Leicester will each get £1.7 million more. Over the next three years, we shall work jointly with local government on a thorough review of revenue grant distribution. We have set ourselves the task of looking for

1143
a simpler, more stable, more robust, fairer system. We want to examine the fundamentals of the financial system governing local authorities.
Mr. Allan: The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would be utterly fair and not consider the politics of local councillors. He knows that people in places such as Sheffield felt disadvantaged by political bias under the previous Government. Will he make it absolutely clear that no community will ever lose out because of the local council it elects, and will he be utterly scrupulous in that respect?
Mr. Prescott: I am proposing criteria by which people can judge that. The aim of SSAs is to achieve fairness. If we are not fair and choose to make political decisions that favour one political party, it will be clear so that everyone can make that judgment. Such conduct is not unknown. Many local authority settlements under the previous Administration were geared to their county areas. The trouble is most of them are now Labour.
Mr. James Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public claim of Ruth Coleman, the Liberal Democrat leader of North Wilshire district council, that she received a personal letter from him saying that the comparatively generous settlement for North Wiltshire was a direct result of her bringing in new council policies? Did he write to her saying that he was benefiting North Wiltshire because the Liberal Democrats control it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief, not mini-speeches. I do not appeal to hon. Members to make brief interventions; I instruct them to.
Mr. Prescott: 1 have received many thousands of letters, but I assure the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that I have not sent or signed any letter that would give any such political favour. The Liberals have a tendency to say such things.
We considered representations on our proposals for council tax benefit and subsidy limitation. I have concluded that it is right to maintain the simple principle that led us to adopt the policy. Local authorities should not expect to be able to pass all the costs of their tax decisions back to central Government. If councils increase their council taxes above the guidelines, they will have to contribute to the benefit costs.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: This morning, we had a delegation from Labour-controlled Northumberland county council, which is in a bit of difficulty with the new SSAs. It would like a fairer system. I know that my right hon. Friend will consider that over three years. It was talking about a figure of 10 per cent., and it is a Labour-controlled authority.
Mr. Prescott: Northumberland has received a 5.5 per cent. increase—which is twice as much as it has received before. That is at least a step towards social justice, and we shall continue to review the finances.
1144
We have considered representations on our proposals for council tax benefit subsidy limitation. However, I have concluded that it is right to maintain the simple principle that led us to adopt this measure. Local authorities should not expect to be able to pass on all the costs of their tax decisions to central Government.
Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
Mr. Prescott: If councils increase—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) must behave himself.
Mr. Prescott: To be honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is the only person who is getting excited about this.
If councils increase council taxes above the guideline, they will contribute to the benefit costs. I was not persuaded that it would be right to limit the contributions any further than the taper that I have proposed or to exempt authorities in particular situations. We will protect authorities that have a higher than average proportion of council tax met by benefit, and they will be treated as though they had an average proportion. That strikes a balance that ensures that the poorest authorities are not treated unfairly.
If we announced capping limits in advance, we would lose the point of abolishing crude capping. Each authority must reach a sensible conclusion in the light of local circumstances. I make no secret of my determination to act if authorities behave unreasonably. They should bear in mind that the Government are contributing their fair share—some £39.5 billion; £2 billion more than this year—to support the local expenditure of £50.6 billion.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I am very impressed by his remarks about fairness. I am sure that he believes absolutely in democracy. In that case, why does he not simply remove the cap and allow local people to decide the level of taxes in their area?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady—who, even allowing for modern political movements, is not likely ever to sit on this Bench—must understand that we have to strike a balance between local and national interests. Governments are responsible for raising taxes, setting out public expenditure programmes and taking decisions about the grants that local authorities will receive. Fifty billion pounds is a substantial amount under any circumstances.
We must make a judgment, and we believe that that is a fair amount of money. It is twice as much as previous settlements and is sufficient to meet the fair provision of services. At the end of the day, democracy will count in local authority areas. Councillors must argue their case with the people, who will either support or reject them. As Labour controls more councils than ever before—it is a record number for any political party—we must be on the right track.
Mr. Brian White: On the point about local communities supporting council tax levels that are higher than the Government recommend, is my right hon. Friend aware that my authority is

1145
conducting a referendum on that issue? If the people vote for higher local council tax, will the Government recognise the validity of that result?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend must be aware that we are proposing legislation that will give such powers to local authorities. We would then take that provision into account. However, I am bound to say that that is not the position this year as we are operating under the law as it presently stands. If an authority says that it wants to do A, B or C, we will take its wishes into account. However, its decisions are not binding upon us. Ultimately, we are bound by the national interest, what we believe to be a fair amount of money for local authorities and what is fair for council tax payers. That is a proper judgment to make, and that is our approach.
I was struck by the time that was spent on formal consultation about the settlement. There has been considerable consultation, and it cannot be right to consume so much of the time of councillors and officers. Ministers have had 72 meetings, each involving several local members and officers—and I am sure that Opposition Members are familiar with the pain of constant meetings. Officers travel to London and often lose a whole day. I do not expect any significant changes to the way in which the grant is distributed next year. As a general rule, I shall expect written representations, which will be considered carefully—particularly when there appear to be errors in our provisional calculations. We shall of course continue to meet the local authority associations.
The next three years will offer stable grants, the opportunity to plan with greater flexibility, and the chance to reinvest efficiency savings and to have a fundamental look at the fairness and clarity of the grant system. We have listened to the representations and we have made an extra £30 million available in order to protect those authorities most affected by change. Authorities will receive an average increase in support of 5.5 per cent. All education authorities will receive at least 1.5 per cent. more in grant and no council will receive less grant next year than it received this year. This is the best settlement for seven years, and I commend it to the House.
4.36 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: When introducing last year's local government finance settlement in December 1997, the Secretary of State took the opportunity of making several promises regarding his Government's intentions for local government. Among other things, he claimed that he would achieve a prospect of fairness, increased local discretion allied to greater local accountability, the ending of crude and universal capping, and the restoration of new and more positive relations between central and local government. Has the right hon. Gentleman really just announced his intention to see no delegations next year? Maybe he thinks that, if he does not see people, it will contribute to new and more positive relations between him and local government.
Mr. Robert Jackson: As to Labour's promises, Oxfordshire now faces three years of substantial reductions in services and increased council tax. Does my
1146
right hon. Friend agree that those people who voted Labour and Liberal at the last general election were sold a false prospectus?
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many disappointed groups and areas around the country not only as a result of last year's settlement but because of the prospect of this year's settlement.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The Deputy Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is getting wiser as the years go by. He clearly would not give way to me because he knew that the grant situation in Dorset is so appalling that he could not possibly continue with his speech. He has decided—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is not responsible for the Secretary of State's speech. I am sure that she cannot reply to that intervention.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes his point very eloquently. We know about the situation in Dorset and in the south of England generally. We shall expect the Minister for Local Government and Housing to reply to those points in detail in her winding-up speech.
We know what last year's settlement delivered. It delivered a record 8.6 per cent. increase in council tax across the board—so much for the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to best value. It achieved a political switch of £50 million away from London authorities and £100 million away from shire areas to the right hon. Gentleman's friends in the north—so much for the prospect of fairness and so much for local discretion allied with local accountability.
Dr. George Turner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kindness in giving way. Before she continues, does she not wish to speak on behalf of the people of Norfolk—whom she and I represent—and thank the Government for the best settlement not only in seven years but in 20? Instead of facing the problems that I faced as chair of education when we could not meet the teachers' pay settlement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mrs. Shephard.
Mrs. Shephard: Why does the Secretary of State not give the hon. Gentleman a job—it would spare us this sort of thing? I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year Norfolk got the worst settlement in its entire history, and that it is not under a Conservative Administration that Norfolk has had to face the closure of all its youth centres and the sale of all its homes for the elderly.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the House on 2 December 1998 on this year's revenue support grant settlement, he could—if he had meant what he said the year before—have put right the damage last year's settlement did, but he chose not do so. For all his hype, today's settlement perpetuates the switch of funds away

1147
from rural areas and from London, and demonstrates a new trend of a clear disadvantage in funding terms for authorities and their communities in the south of England.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Lady told the House that last year's settlement was worse than any under a Tory Administration. In fact, in 1995–96, under a Tory Government, the increase was 0.4 per cent.
Mrs. Shephard: I also said that it was not under a Conservative Administration that Norfolk had to face the loss of all its youth centres and all its homes for the elderly. That happened under a Labour Government and a Lib-Lab council.
This settlement, despite all the right hon. Gentleman's huffing and puffing, will result in council tax rises across the board. He has said little about that. I wonder whether he would like to comment on the fact that the Treasury's assumptions in its pre-Budget report of 3 November 1998 were for a council tax rise of 7.7 per cent., which appears curiously at variance with his predictions.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Lady should look up the facts of the case. If she looks carefully, she will see that the Red Book refers to England, Scotland and Wales, whereas our proposal refers only to England. As so often, she is not comparing like with like.
Mrs. Shephard: I can go on. The right hon. Gentleman's view, expressed on 2 December last year, that the settlement was
"the best deal for years for local people"—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 886.]
is not a view shared by local people throughout the country. Local people in Norfolk face a council tax rise of four times the rate of inflation. Local people in Buckinghamshire will have to pay a council tax rise of more than 9 per cent. Local people in Cambridgeshire face both a £12 million shortfall and the Prime Minister's broken promise about their future status in respect of the area cost adjustment. Local people in Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Essex, Kent, West Sussex and Dorset see that the Government's methodology has robbed them of millions, which will inevitably lead to council tax rises in double figures, according to the Local Government Chronicle.
Mr. Tom King: I cannot imagine why my right hon. Friend has excluded Somerset from that litany. I have just come downstairs from dealing with letters of despair from many head teachers in Somerset, who, as a result of the settlement, face the prospect of teacher redundancies and serious problems for their schools.
Mrs. Shephard: It is perhaps because of such views—the views of real people—that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced his intention not to see any delegations next year.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Barnsley council has this year received its highest settlement for a long time—the fifth highest settlement of any local authority this year. However, even with that 7.2 per cent. increase and assuming a 10 per cent. increase in the council tax, the authority this week faced £10.2 million worth of cuts.
1148
Those cuts come not as a consequence of the Labour Government's settlement, but as a consequence of the previous Government's refusing, for nine years, to alter the SSA methodology. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Shephard: Could what the hon. Gentleman describes have something to do with the way in which Barnsley is run?
Mr. Michael J. Foster: The right hon. Lady mentioned that Worcestershire faced a double-digit increase in council tax. Can she tell the House what proof she has of that? If she has no proof, will she withdraw the remark? If Worcestershire delivers a council tax increase that is less than double digits, will she apologise to the House?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have been received with a degree of incredulity by Conservative Members. When I read my list of the worst affected authorities, I made it clear that my source was the Local Government Chronicle. The Local Government Chronicle is equally concerned about the position in London, as is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who wrote movingly in the Evening Standard of 29 January 1999:
"How has it all gone so sour so quickly?"
He continues:
"The nightmare is that this new scheme is supposed to stay in place unchanged for the next three years."
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am overexcited by the intervention from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Had he been doing his duty by his constituents, he would have said that there was a great likelihood of there being a double-digit increase in the council tax in Worcestershire. Even the director of social services in the county has accepted that there is to be a 4 per cent. real-terms cut in the social services budget in this financial year.
Mrs. Shephard rose—
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give way—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must call on the House to settle down. Hon. Members are being most unruly and there is far too much noise.
Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I do not understand why Labour Members are being so shy about the fact that the budget for Oxfordshire county council, which was tabled by the Labour group on that council, clearly shows that the Labour group wants a council tax rise in Oxfordshire of 12.5 per cent.
Mrs. Shephard: Indeed. As my hon. Friend makes clear, we know very well who runs the council in Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) has caused the hon. Member for

1149
Worcester (Mr. Foster) to stand corrected and we hope that it will be he who apologises if the council tax rise turns out as expected.
Sadly, the figures announced by the Government in December and confirmed today by the Deputy Prime Minister have set the seal on a systematic fix to benefit the Labour party's friends in the north at the expense of rural England, London and the south.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Shephard: No, I intend to make a little progress now.
Over the past two years, rural areas have lost £250 million of funding, thanks to the Government's changes to the methodology. As we have heard this afternoon, those have been set in stone and it is no good anybody asking to see the Deputy Prime Minister because he will see no one; so rural authorities are set to lose a further £300 million during the two remaining years of this Parliament.
London, too, has been hit. It has lost £140 million during the past two years and will lose a further £180 million during the next two. The hon. Member for Brent, East painted a stark picture in last Friday's Evening Standard when he wrote that Brent faced having to cut education by £2.4 million, to slash provision for old-age pensioners, the disabled and children in care, to close day centres and libraries, to end the youth service, to cut road maintenance—and so on. He pointed out that the picture would be the same in Hackney, Newham, Haringey and Lambeth.
Mr. Prescott: Why is he not here?
Mrs. Shephard: I dare say that the hon. Member is busy canvassing.
The Deputy Prime Minister has attempted to point out that that loss has been adjusted by his use of the special grant system, but as he has also pointed out, that is only transitional. His intention is that the underlying pattern of injustice should continue.
Further disturbing patterns emerge from this year's settlement. Analysis reveals that of the 25 councils that have been the least favourably treated in terms of Government grant, 20 are in the south of England. Their council tax payers have been singled out by the Government for the highest council tax increases.
It is up to Ministers to explain their motivation for those changes, which to the outside world could appear political. Whatever their motivation is, they cannot maintain—not while keeping a straight face, anyway—that the highest increases have been awarded to efficient or well run councils. Time does not permit me to give a full recital of the goings-on in corrupt Labour-controlled councils, but is it not ironic that Labour-controlled Birmingham will get the biggest increase this year? That council accumulated losses of £2.5 million from the super prix. In Birmingham, the question, "How many people does it take to change a light bulb?" gets the answer, "I don't know, but I do know that each one earns £42,000 a year."
1150
Sheffield has done very nicely too.
Mr. David Lock: Having insulted everybody north of Watford by using the expression "friends in the north", will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she includes the people of Birmingham in that category? Does the fact that she has insulted all the people who voted for Labour councils mean that she has given up any hope of making gains for her party in May's elections?
Mrs. Shephard: I find it extraordinary that a Labour Member should think that it an insult to call someone a friend of the Labour party, but that is a problem for the hon. Gentleman.
I suppose that Rotherham council is being rewarded for the fact that its deputy leader has, apparently, been suspended following allegations that money that should have been contributed to the Forum Against Poverty went instead on hotel and prostitution bills.
Mr. David Watts: While the right hon. Lady is naming names concerning the scandalous behaviour of Labour councillors, will she take the opportunity to condemn Lady Porter, who happened to run off with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money?
Mrs. Shephard: The best ones are the old ones and that one, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is sub judice.
We have heard a great deal about education from the Deputy Prime Minister. Conservative Members have consistently welcomed the Government's investment in education, and I do so again today. However, it is ironic that after the Government have organised that investment, gift-wrapped it and kept it in the Department for Education and Employment so that it can be announced and re-announced every time the Secretary of State for Education and Employment or the Prime Minister visits a school, not only is it now unavailable to fund the teachers' pay award but it may even threaten some of the gift-wrapped schemes themselves.
As the Brent primary school head teachers' group said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Brent education committee is having to consider not only sacking teachers and cutting school budgets but making reductions on some of the Government's flagship projects such as the national grid for learning, the numeracy strategy and the social exclusion initiative.
As Graham Lane, the chairman of the Local Government Association's education committee, said:
"We all want to see teachers receiving a fair wage rise but this settlement means being forced to find an extra £70 million unless the Government fully funds the cost".
Of course, the Government could do that if some of the £1 billion put aside for restructuring pay were used to avert an unnecessary crisis, as local authority employers have suggested.
We have heard much today from the Deputy Prime Minister about the size of the settlement. We have heard rather less about the council tax rises that he expects. In fact, we have no idea how much of an increase he will tolerate, which is not much comfort for council tax payers throughout the country. Capping is a system with faults—no one denies that. It is no substitute for the clarity and

1151
accountability that could be achieved by a thoroughgoing reform of local government, giving councils financial accountability.
However, by introducing a hide-and-seek approach to local government finance, the Government have, instead of tackling the weaknesses of capping, removed its strengths and put nothing in their place. They have taken decisions out of the public eye. Their object is not to expose high-spending authorities to the control of accountable local democracy but to augment the power of the centre.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authority leaders of all parties will be most concerned about the Deputy Prime Minister's refusal to see any delegation next year? Is not that a negation of democracy and an indication that he wants to entrench for ever the favouring of Labour councils outside shire counties? Is not that a complete refusal to do his job?
Mrs. Shephard: I hope that, by the time the Minister for Local Government and Housing concludes the debate, she will have put right the impression that the Deputy Prime Minister may regret having created.
The Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for council tax benefit subsidy compound the problem that he is creating. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and Housing seems to want to make her contribution now. Perhaps, when she concludes the debate, she will explain why the Government have taken no notice whatever in their consultation of the views of the Local Government Association on the changes to subsidy arrangements.
The LGA has opposed the changes, and we agree with it. It has done so because they will impact unfairly on different parts of the country, with the result that council tax payers in the poorest areas will be hit harder than those in better-off areas. In other words, the nearly poor will pay for the really poor. The LGA believes that the Government should meet the cost of welfare benefits, not local authorities or council tax payers. It believes that the scheme is very complex—at least in that it agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister—and that the guidelines seek to reimpose the very capping that the Government said in opposition they wished to end. The LGA opposes the scheme because, perhaps most ludicrously, it will hit authorities that spend below their SSAs—23 such authorities, including eight in London, which is another hit on London.
The Deputy Prime Minister wants the country to believe that this settlement is the best deal for years. Although he may claim to have increased the global amount, he has done so in a way that is unfair, arbitrary and open to political manipulation. It deepens the divide between country and town, disadvantages London and the south of England, and adds nothing to the clarity and accountability in local government that the right hon. Gentleman never tires of telling us he seeks. For those reasons, we shall oppose motion No. 2.
4.57 pm
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers on keeping the election promise to local government and on providing this financial settlement. It is the best that has been offered to local government for many years,
1152
and is fully appreciated. Due to the time limit on speeches, I shall address my remarks to the single issue of the council tax benefit limitation scheme. I ask my right hon. Friend to give further thought to the issue.
I remind the House of the injury sustained by local government over 18 years of Tory rule—18 years of constant attack by Conservative Ministers cutting grants and resources, which in turn meant cutting services and, year on year, increasing council tax. The Tories used the rate support grant formula to award increases in grants to a few Tory councils—but they cut grants to many Labour-controlled and other councils, which now form the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities—SIGOMA—of which my authority, Wakefield, is a member.
Cuts in grants meant council tax increases to help to sustain services—essential services in many areas. As a result, local government aggregate spending rose to £2 billion higher than the standard spending assessment. That disparity still applies. It is one of the anomalies that local authorities have to face. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations taking place in the Chamber. That is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.
Mr. O'Brien: I have raised the matter previously. An analysis should be conducted of the aggregate spending and the standard spending assessment, so that we can level the playing field for local government.
I draw attention to the effects of the Conservatives' policies on local government, which have resulted in councils throughout the country being poorer in resources, still being classed as poor councils, and having a substantial number of low-value properties and a high percentage of people claiming benefit. That is the situation in many parts of the north of England, particularly in the mining communities. Many authorities in SIGOMA have an estimated average of more than 20 per cent. of their total council tax income coming from benefit. As a result of social inequalities, those benefit claimants are the very people who require more services.
If a council in the poorer group of local authorities tried to increase its council tax over its budget requirements to sustain services, the application of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would be devastating, because of the clawback of the rate support grant.
The council tax benefit is payable to help people who cannot afford to pay their council tax. It is a social benefit and, I believe, it should be the responsibility of the Government to meet the cost. Such direct welfare costs should not be a charge on the resources of local authorities. I emphasise that I am speaking of the poorer council group in local government.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to look again at capping and to review his decision on the procedures for capping. I also ask for more time for all of us to consider the implications of the Government's proposal. As it is not yet statute, more thought should be given to it. I ask for the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy scheme to be deferred. Because of its complexity, we need more time to analyse it. Amendments have been suggested for my right hon. Friend to consider. Perhaps he would be willing to meet Back-Bench Members so that we could offer our points of view before the final decisions are made.

1153
I ask for a review of the scheme to localise part of the cost of council tax benefit subsidy. If the proposal were implemented in its current form, it would hit the poorest areas hardest. It is the responsibility of Government, not of local authorities, to meet the cost of welfare benefits. Help given to poor people with their council tax payments is a social benefit.
The guideline increases are widely seen as a direct substitute for crude and universal capping. I supported my right hon. Friend and the policy of the Labour party to abolish the crude capping procedure. As we do not have all the necessary information, we need more time to consider and discuss the Government's proposal.
The capping scheme can apply to local authorities below the SSA. That is a further anomaly that we should consider. The scheme will also obscure the public's understanding of council tax increases. I support the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers to improve relationships within our communities to generate more interest in local government.
To defer the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would demonstrate my right hon. Friend's fairness. A deferment for a minimum of 12 months would give hon. Members with an interest in local government the opportunity to analyse the system. Again, I reiterate my request for an opportunity to discuss the matter with Ministers.
The application of the rate support grant is widely welcomed, particularly in education and social services. Members of SIGOMA have, on more than one occasion, thanked Ministers for the settlement, which is far in excess of what local government ever received in a single year under the Tories. Because of that background, I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter so that my right hon. Friend's reputation for fairness remains unspoilt.
5.7 pm
Mr. David Curry: My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) have asked to be associated with the remarks that I shall make about North Yorkshire.
I am interested in the Government's recently enunciated concept of open government, which means that they will not meet delegations. I hope that does not have too much of an impact on the January sales in London next year.
Two elements are particularly disappointing. The area cost adjustment is a difficult area, but the Labour Opposition did not give the previous Tory Government the impression that it was an insoluble problem. They said they would crack it pretty quickly. It is difficult and there is a distortion, and the trouble with stability for three years is that those who get the money are pleased with the stability, while those who wish that they had it are displeased with the stability.
I am more concerned about the Government's failure to address additional educational needs. That indicator is now out of date. Too much weight is given to ethnicity. There is no perfect correlation between ethnicity and educational underachievement. A significant amount of educational underachievement in, for example, London,
1154
is to be found in disadvantaged white families. It should be possible to move away from that rather mechanistic formula and to target resources where there is a clear need.
Ms Oona King: In my constituency of Tower Hamlets, 102 languages are spoken in the classrooms, and about two thirds of children have parents who do not speak a second language. That has to affect their chances.
Mr. Curry: My point is that, at the moment, we have a mechanical indicator. Ethnicity plays a heavy part throughout the school scale. I am looking for an indicator which is more sensitive to the identification of real problems in education and which moves away from that rather mechanistic background. I am not predisposed to say that we should give less money to the hon. Lady's constituents or to those of another hon. Member. I want to reflect need more effectively. That is what is important.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made some sensible remarks about the council tax benefit schemes. I hope that the Secretary of State has listened to them, and I endorse entirely the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the need to look at the schemes much more carefully before they are introduced.
I want to address the particular situation in North Yorkshire, and, first of all, the fiction that there has been a real increase in resources in education. I say that having seen the letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—the usual threatening letter—saying, "This money has all got to go to education." There is a dangerous tendency: more and more, the Government want to hypothecate expenditure to individual services.
Secondly, North Yorkshire has taken a cash hit of £3.1 million on social services. The Secretary of State unveiled £30 million extra at the beginning of the week and I immediately rang North Yorkshire with the glad tidings that that was supposed to compensate local authorities that had taken a hit on social services, but the distribution is not related to the hit on social services. It is related to the overall position on standard spending assessments.
That means that there is a perverse outcome. North Yorkshire has taken a bigger hit than West Sussex, for example, but West Sussex comes out with an extra £2 million while North Yorkshire has nothing. Wandsworth has been given £6 million; Westminster, which has clearly been rehabilitated in the Government's sights, has been given £4 million; and Brent has been given £2.4 million. North Yorkshire, which has taken that severe hit, has been given no additional resources at all.
Social services are in a serious position, and—
Mr. Willis rose—
Mr. Adrian Sanders rose—
Mr. Curry: I will not give way, because of the time limit. I am sorry about that. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will agree that, because of way that social services are framed in North Yorkshire, and because of the number of homes in Harrogate and Scarborough, we have suffered particular difficulty. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) was in the Chamber, but is here no longer.

1155
The education SSA has gone up by nearly £13 million. The county council will make sure that all that money goes to education, but we must look at what comes out of it, if we are to make a sensible assessment. We must take into account the increase in school pupil numbers, the overhang of last year's teachers' pay settlement and this year's pay settlement. The county budgeted for 3.5 per cent., but, because of the particular increase for primary school head teachers—the necessity for which I accept—and because we have 327 primary schools in North Yorkshire, that settlement has been pushed up to almost 4 per cent.
The standards fund, which used to be called GEST—grant for education support and training—and which met the requirements for special educational needs also has to be taken into account. Even if all that money goes to schools, there will be a 1.5 per cent. cut in each school budget. That is under a scheme that the Government keep telling us represents the priority "education, education, education". [Interruption.] There is no point in the Minister for Local Government and Housing muttering from a sedentary position. The fact is that that is a real cut for education in North Yorkshire. She blathers about this matter, as the Government do about so many other things.
In social services, all the voluntary organisations are facing cuts. I could wave the bleeding stumps around the Chamber, as Labour Members used to do when the positions were reversed, and I could throw at the Minister a sheaf of letters from voluntary organisations complaining about the cuts. Voluntary organisations are indispensable to delivering social services—they are not delivered only by the county council. The council depends enormously on the good will and co-operation of voluntary organisations to make sure that services work in practice.
The county will try to bail people out by lending £1 million from the reserves, but it has also taken a hit on the landfill tax and the withdrawal of tax relief on investment dividends will cost the pension funds £500,000. How do we get out of that? The Secretary of State's guideline for council tax increases works out at 4.9 per cent., but the proposal from the Conservative ruling group—which, I think, has the support of all the parties—is for a 9.6 per cent. increase.
The crisis in education and the cuts in social services mean that that increase will not even maintain the level of services, but they mean that North Yorkshire has been badly let down. Every teacher, every child, every social worker, every pupil and every elderly person needing help has been badly let down by the Government.
Is there a margin for manoeuvre? No, because North Yorkshire's working balances are the third lowest in English counties and are already close to the point at which the auditor will get extremely nervous about their low level. However, there is one thing that the Minister could do to help. The county council was awarded nearly £1 million of grant in respect of European schemes last July, but the Treasury still has not paid the money. That is a monstrous failure of administration on the part of a Government who talk constantly about the need for big companies to ensure that their debts to little companies are paid on time. The sooner the money is paid, the better.
This is a scandalous situation and a bad settlement. The Government have funked the major indicators, which will have an impact on everyone. There is a three-year
1156
moratorium which freezes the amount, and which, apparently, will not even be subject to discussion. All that has been accompanied by the usual glib and partial presentation. The people of North Yorkshire will know who is to blame, but the taxpayers will be stuffed by a Government who are big on rhetoric, but miserably threadbare when it comes to any form of delivery.
5.16 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not think that it will greatly surprise my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Housing to learn that I cannot share all the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for this year's settlement. My hon. Friend will know from her discussions with councillors from my city of Leicester of the difficulties that the city is likely to face as a result of the settlement. She has listened, and she has been very generous to local representatives; she has not been so generous in the additional support that she has announced, but the extra £1.7 million is nevertheless welcome.
May I point out to my hon. Friend a mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister—the Secretary of State—may have made in referring to the £1.7 million which, I think, will go to Leicester as additional benefit? I understand that not all of it is a consequence of "damping" on the reduction in social services, but that £1.3 million arises from that, while the other £0.4 million arises from an update of data. It is not all additional relief, as the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to suggest. While I am referring to my right hon. Friend, let me add that I think he is right to take pride in the settlement that he has achieved on a global scale, although it is unfair in the particular case of Leicester. I think that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has a cheek to criticise this Government, who have sought to listen to local representatives, who—notwithstanding what was said from the Dispatch Box—will doubtless continue to listen to them, and who have tried to introduce at least a greater degree of transparency in decision making this year than we saw under her party's Administration.
I am one of those described by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who used to wave sheaves of letters at him when he was replying at the Dispatch Box. We all know that, under the Conservative Administration, the revenue settlement was manipulated on purely political grounds. That is the only way to explain the benefit that was given to Westminster and other city boroughs, and the way in which inner-city areas outside London were treated.
Let me return to my basic point, which concerns Leicester. Leicester's settlement is very poor. Our standard spending assessment increase is lower than that of any other unitary or metropolitan authority, and it is the third lowest of all SSAs. It is particularly harsh, given that—the House will know this, as I mentioned it in the two preceding years—it follows hard on the heels of difficult years in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Since Leicester became a unitary authority in 1997, it has had lower SSA increases than any similar authority. Over that two-year period, Leicester has been forced to make cuts of some £20 million. To show the perversity of the Tories' crude capping system, which, unfortunately, we inherited last year, at a time of £20 million cuts, in the first year—1997–98—council tax decreased by 13 per cent., but, last year, it increased by 26 per cent.

1157
As I have already said, this year's settlement compounds the difficulties that Leicester faces. As the Minister knows, one of the big problems is the methodology changes to the funding of children's social services. Previously, funding was determined largely by ethnicity. As Leicester has a large ethnic population, this year's change has a profound effect on its allocation. As a consequence purely of those methodology changes, it will lose £2.7 million.
The second big item is the continuing fall in school rolls; that trend has been apparent in Leicester for a number of years. In previous years, I have urged the Government to introduce a damping factor, but they have failed to do so. I hope that they will consider it in the overall review. As a consequence of falling student numbers, Leicester loses £1.7 million for education alone. We have one of the lowest increases in the SSA for education of any local authority.
The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely correct. We are not suffering a reduction, but the increase that we are being given is hardly sufficient for the service to stand still. Just because pupil numbers are falling does not mean—
Mr. Sanders: Surely, given the fact that the head count is 18 months out of date, if a local authority has falling pupil rolls, it is quids in. It is when it has rising pupil numbers that it has the problem because there is a delay in the money reaching the schools.
Mr. Marshall: I do not really understand the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, but, if he studied the relevant factors, he would know that the numbers are always 18 months to two years out of date. As a consequence, nearly all local authorities receive more educational expenditure than they would if the actual figures were known. Leicester is losing £1.7 million as a result of falling pupil rolls.
The two major changes that I have described, together with other changes that the Government have announced, mean that, this year, Leicester again faces substantial cuts: we have to seek to reduce the budget by some £5.5 million.
My understanding is that the controlling Labour group is meeting this evening to consider a package of cuts totalling about £5.5 million. 1 understand that it has pledged that that will not affect the level of front-line services, but, inevitably, with that order of cuts, non-front-line services will be severely adversely affected. It is also clear that jobs will inevitably be at risk. Assistance to the voluntary sector will be severely restricted. I understand that the amount of money that the city council gives to the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester is likely to be reduced in the coming financial year, which will affect theatre lovers and theatre goers in Leicester. The Minister may argue that the proposed cuts do not affect front-line services, but, as a package, it will severely affect the overall services that Leicester is able provide.
To sum up, this settlement means another abysmal year for Leicester. Although I welcome the additional funding provided by the Government, I remind the House and the Minister that the extra £1.7 million is a one-off figure.
1158
Unless the Government find some additional means of providing assistance for Leicester in the next 12 months, the situation we will face next year will be just as difficult as that we are facing this year.
I have a final plea for my hon. Friend the Minister. When my hon. Friend is looking at the specific grants, particularly for social services, I accept that she must be fair to all local authorities, but I hope that she will bend over backwards to be ultra fair to Leicester.
5.26 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: Local government settlements always bring out a touch of the showman—perhaps I should say the magician—in the Secretary of State. This settlement is no different from any previous settlement in that there is smoke and mirrors and plenty of spin.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: I think I should make a little more progress before taking interventions. I will be happy to take the hon. Lady's intervention later.
This year we are told that council tax need rise by only 4.5 per cent. and that this is the most generous settlement for seven years. Neither claim should be taken at face value. Both are based on the pseudo-science of standard spending assessments and I accept the Secretary of State's comment that it is important to have a thorough review in that respect.
Mr. Sanders: Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]
Mr. Burstow: I will give way to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)
Mr. Sanders: The review is important. If we analyse the areas which have done well and those which have done badly, some common themes will emerge. It is clear that the areas that have done badly this year tend to have large numbers of elderly people in care and rising pupil numbers and, demographically, those areas tend to be in the south and south-west. Those two factors must be looked at.
Mr. Burstow: That is a good point and I hope that the Minister is listening. I hope that such points will be taken into account in the review that she is undertaking.
Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, including the increase in SSA for social services of 11.3 per cent., this settlement means that Liverpool city council could freeze council tax very shortly if it wished to do so? Does he intend to advise the Liberal Democrats currently running Liverpool to congratulate the Labour Government on this settlement and the opportunity that it affords them?
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention because it enables me to say that, unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in prescribing from

1159
the centre. I shall certainly not be telling my colleagues on Liverpool city council what to do, which is in stark contrast to the Labour party's approach.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: I should utter a few more sentences and then I will give way.
It is important to examine a little more closely the idea that there will be a low level of council tax increase and a generous settlement. Last year, the Local Government Association surveyed local authorities to get a picture of the real pressures on budgets and services, some of which we have heard from Labour Members already. The association found that local authorities need a total of £3,188 million of additional revenue just to sustain current levels of service. Taking into account the Government's generous settlement, local government is still left staring into a £1.7 million black hole.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the distribution of grant and the patterns that can be seen. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 50 per cent. of all the losses sustained in children's personal social services in London have been sustained by councils with very high multi-ethnicity? That includes, Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hackney and Lambeth. Tower Hamlets is one of the exceptions because of the large number of tower blocks in the area. Over 50 per cent. of the ethnic population in those boroughs has borne 75 per cent. of all the losses in London.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point—with which the Minister will not agree, although it is borne out in our constituencies, where services are undoubtedly under severe pressure because of decisions made by the Secretary of State and his Ministers about how they will carve up the money available this year to local government.
The funding gap will be bridged in much the same way as it has been for years and years—by increased and new charges, tighter eligibility criteria, higher council tax increases and, of course, service cuts.
So how will this year's settlement be different? Crude and universal capping will remain. The Secretary of State told the House that last year would be the last year in which crude capping would operate. Closer examination of the figures reveals that there is still serious pressure on key services. Moreover, capping will not only remain but have two new added twists.
First, budget setting will become a game of Russian roulette, as the Secretary of State refuses to declare his capping principles in advance.
Secondly, council tax benefit limitation will add belt and braces to the capping system, leaving some of the poorest communities footing the bill for the poorest of their neighbours. I very much welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I hope that Ministers will meet him and other Labour Members, listen to their arguments and decide to abandon that unacceptable and dishonest policy.
1160
When in opposition, Labour Members condemned the previous Government's introduction of the same principle, in proposals to claw back housing benefit. Indeed, 98 Labour Members signed an early-day motion condemning the previous Government on clawing back housing benefit. They should condemn also the proposed council tax benefit clawback.
The problem is that hon. Members will not be able to debate the clawback on the Floor of the House, as it will be dealt with in Committee, as secondary legislation. Legislation passed by the previous Government will therefore enable the current Government to introduce a regime of council tax benefit clawback.
We believe that there should have been a proper debate on the proposal on the Floor of the House, so that it could be amended and debated properly. Instead, the proposal will be rushed through in Committee by a few hon. Members and will not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government should be condemned for that. They should include the proposal in a local government Bill, so that we may have a proper debate on it.
Closer inspection of the figures provided by the Library reveals that the social services standard spending assessment for England will rise by 1.3 per cent., after adjusting for the current year's special transitional grant for community care. Even on the Government's own figures, that will leave a £100 million gap simply to meet inflation in social services.
A lower than inflation increase for social services will make cuts in current services inevitable. Moreover, the 1.3 per cent. increase disguises considerable variations between classes of authority. Undermining current services by underfunding makes no sense at a time when the Government are setting targets and directing a whole host of specific grants at social services to secure change and improvement. Ultimately, it will be self-defeating.
In a report to Worcestershire's social services committee, the department's director, in describing the effect of the loss of grant for community care, said:
"There will now effectively be no demographic fund to cope with the increasing demands of an ageing society and the particular pressures of people with disabilities living longer and needing a proper quality of life."
He went on to say:
"The likelihood therefore is new spend on new initiatives in some cases, and at the same time deep cuts in other parts of the service."
The problem is that the Government are focused on delivering a change agenda, but are blind to the need to maintain existing core services. Consequently, for example, Leicestershire faces the prospect of rationing admissions to homes for elderly people so that it might bridge the funding gap. Although such rationing is not allowed in law, authorities are working out ways of trying to achieve it. It is another savage cut that will impact on the lives of elderly people.
The same pressures apply to education. We have learnt that Ministers are saying that education funding in the settlement is sufficient to fund the pay award in full. Yet the Secretary of State for Education is writing letters left, right and centre—to governors, head teachers and

1161
everyone else—to promise that that money will be given to schools to fund class-size reductions and all of the Government's other initiatives.
Mr. David Heath: I should like to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the remarks of the Minister for School Standards in last night's Adjournment debate. She said:
"I certainly accept the argument that it"—
Somerset county council—
"is receiving less SSA than he and his constituents have a right to expect"—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1055.]
If that is the case, why are the Government not doing something about it?
Mr. Burstow: That is one reason why we shall vote against this inadequate settlement. Last night's Adjournment debate showed that the Government accept that it is inadequate for Somerset.
Where will the £68 million needed to meet the teachers' pay award come from? It will come from the budget for classroom books and materials and from cuts to other services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tells me that, according to the Government's standard spending assessment figures, Northumberland county council is expected to spend only £2,807 per pupil, compared with a figure of £4,553 for Kensington and Chelsea. There may well be differences between those areas. That is not under dispute. However, it is impossible for a council such as Northumberland to maintain the same education standards when the gap is so wide. We learn today that there is to be a 10 per cent. increase in council tax in Northumberland as a consequence of the settlement that the Government are dishing out.
I have heard recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that North Yorkshire has lost a further £500,000 from its funding this week. On Wednesday, the council agreed to passport all £12.9 million of the education SSA through to education, but that does not meet the extra costs of the standards fund, transport and special educational needs, so it has had to write to tell the head teachers to expect a 1.5 per cent. cut in their budgets and be prepared to sack teachers and support workers.
Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend will be aware that many councils will have large council tax rises and service cuts. Does he agree that the system of local government finance is so opaque that electors do not know whether they have an inefficient council or a mean Government?
Mr. Burstow: The pseudo-science of SSAs and the capping regime, under which councils do not know on what basis they are to be capped, mean that accountability is blurred and it is difficult for people to know whether they should write an angry letter to the Minister or try to vote their county councillor out of office.
North Yorkshire estimates that its council tax will have to rise by 9.7 per cent. Try explaining to people there why their council tax is going up by 9.7 per cent. while services are being cut and teachers are being sacked.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman's argument mean that he should
1162
support the Government's moratorium on changes for three years while a more equitable system is worked out and agreed by all concerned?
Mr. Burstow: Part of my argument is that the settlement and the distribution methodology are still unsound. That is why we shall vote against the settlement. Stability in an unsound distribution system is not stability for those councils that will have to make cuts. Many hon. Members on both sides have clearly shown today that they face serious cuts to local services. However, Ministers say that there will be no cuts to front-line services. That is demonstrably untrue. Ministers must come out of the fantasy world of their fantasy figures and come into the real world, where cuts are being made to local services.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: I am sorry, but I have already given way and I must make progress.
Ministers spent settlement day last December promising that council taxes would rise by just 4.5 per cent. That estimate was based on the national control totals rather than on local reality. Ministers tell us that they have to take an interest in controlling local spending because it is part of Government expenditure. As Lord Hunt's committee on relations between central and local government said, that is a Humpty Dumpty argument. International experience shows that the control of local government's self-financed expenditure is not critical to the success of the economy. Even in the UK, self-financed expenditure has been in and out of the control totals. As long as it remains part of the control totals, Whitehall will be calling the shots rather than the town hall, at the expense of local democracy.
As hon. Members have said, this year's settlement cannot be considered in isolation. The cumulative effect of years of inadequate settlement have taken their toll. In education, for example, the settlement announced in December 1997 left a £562 million funding gap between what had been passported to education and the cash provided by the Government. That left many councils struggling to balance their books and as a result, instead of falling, primary class sizes continued to increase.
The pressure to spend all the money that had been passported to education on education increased pressures on other services, so social services were in the front line for further cuts. It has been estimated that in the current financial year each social services department faced an average of £2.1 million in cuts. Nearly two out of three authorities increased charges, raising an additional £45 million and new charges were introduced raising a further £17 million. That money came out of the pockets of people who could not afford to pay, but as they needed the care, they had no choice. No Government ever acknowledge the cumulative effect of cuts, but it needs to be addressed otherwise core services will continue to be damaged.
It is not a good settlement for local government and nor is it a generous one, as Ministers would have us believe. It leaves community care for the elderly and disabled underfunded. It leaves councils to raid school budgets to fund the teachers' pay award. It leaves council tax payers bemused with bigger bills and poorer services and that is why we shall vote against it tonight.
5.41 pm
Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on securing what is undoubtedly an excellent settlement for local government expenditure. I did not expect Opposition Members to support it. We all know that local elections are pending and we can all envisage the manifestos being rehearsed in today's speeches. However, I recognise that there are problems. Certainly 18 years of Tory Government have left local authorities with reduced powers, little financial self-control and low morale. Local authorities are now unable to respond to local community needs and as a result the number of people taking part in local elections has declined. This year's settlement will maintain services, will allow for some slight increases in expenditure on key services and will lead to some improvements.
On the crucial issue of fairness I do not believe that the settlement makes much progress on changing the grant system to make it fairer on local authorities such as St. Helens. However, before Opposition Members support that sentiment, I would point out that the Government inherited the present inadequate grant system from the previous Administration. It is very unfair and has undoubtedly reduced the powers and independence of local government. It has increased central control over council budgets and has massively increased local council taxes so it is hardly surprising that the Government face major problems in dealing with the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government.
The present system crammed more council resources into areas such as Westminster. There is no doubt about that. After two years, no Opposition Member has yet come to the Dispatch Box and apologised to the House and to the country for the corruption in Westminster council.
I am sad that we have not made more progress on fairness. The decision to kick the issue into the long grass for three years is most disturbing. I had honestly hoped that we could have made more progress and I am disappointed, as is my local authority. However, I am aware of the difficulties. I watched my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on television recently. First she was criticised for not making enough changes to the system and then she was told that the changes that she had made were too severe. I understand that it is difficult to make changes. Obviously, people are concerned about the effects of this year's settlement on their local councils.
Many people in areas such as Barnsley and St. Helens want the Government to recognise that the unfairness has lasted, not for one year, but for 18 years. The massive differences in grant between authorities must be dealt with.
Moreover, the London lobby has been very strong. The Evening Standard has mounted a massive campaign about proposed changes to the education standard spending assessments. There is growing discontent in the north-west and Yorkshire about the weight thrown by the London press behind the lobby to maintain the status quo. The Government must understand that many people want and expect substantial changes to be made in the near future.
1164
My local council in St. Helens is run well. It is praised by the district auditor, has fewer chief officers than most local authorities, and is an efficient and effective organisation. However, its council tax is high and there is a shortage of resources. That is not due to the way in which the council is run but to the grant system with which we have to live.
The Government want local government to make efficiency savings of 2 per cent. That will be exceedingly difficult for authorities such as St. Helens and Barnsley. It will not be so difficult for areas such as Westminster: I would rather make annual cuts of 10 per cent. in Westminster's expenditure than of 2 per cent. in St. Helens. Certain councils are awash with money, while others have very limited resources.
It is unfair to assert that, under the present grants system, each local authority should be treated the same. It will be virtually impossible for areas such as Barnsley to achieve the Government target. We have heard already that, despite this year's good settlement, there is likely to be an increase of 10 per cent. in Barnsley's council tax, and further cuts in provision are also probable. Given Barnsley council's massive efficiency savings over the past few years, that is not appropriate.
I shall briefly describe the problems that we face. How can it be fair for Westminster to be considered to be in greater need than Liverpool? How can Wandsworth be in greater need than Barnsley? How can Westminster get £1,000 more per child than St. Helens for the provision of education, and £150 per person more for cultural events? How can leafy Kensington and Chelsea get £150 more than St. Helens in SSAs?
The facts speak for themselves. The present system is corrupt and needs to be radically reviewed. Local government spending should be based first on the standard cost of service provision, then on the spending needs of each local authority. For example, if a school has lots of pupils who speak languages other than English, the amount of money devoted to that school should be based on the actual costs incurred, rather than on some theory put together by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mr. Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Watts: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say no.
The introduction of factors such as poverty, unemployment and health into the equation is long overdue. One of the worst things that the previous Government did was to ignore unemployment and poverty. I hope that this Government's review will take such factors on board.
The present system means that many councils have high levels of council tax and poor levels of service, for no other reason than that the SSA system does not work in their favour. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing will consider three requests. The first—which I was pleased to hear has already been conceded today—is that the Government come back every year to report on the progress achieved in the reviews that have been set up. The second request is for an assurance that the review will be completed and implemented in three years. I am aware that there will be

1165
an election coming up around that time, and that it is probable that the issue will be left until afterwards: I should be grateful for an assurance to the contrary.
My final request has to do with housing benefit subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) asked how many people supported the Government's proposal on housing benefit subsidy, and how many opposed it. The answer to the first question was none, and to the second that all the letters would be placed in the Library. I believe that there is a substantial number.
Mr. Simon Burns: How many?
Mr. Watts: I do not know exactly how many; perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Some assurances would give authorities such as St. Helens some confidence that we will make progress. I do not underestimate the problems that any Government would have in trying to clear up the legacy left by the previous Government. However, I hope that my suggestions can be taken on board, and that there will be substantial progress as quickly as possible. I certainly hope to see changes within the next few months.
5.50 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I always enjoy the Secretary of State's presentations on local government finance. He is bluff, and he raises a smile. He also tries to cover up the underlying trends. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) picked out one of those trends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) noted it too. That trend is the tendency to move money out of London and the south-east in spite of difficulties there.
Last year, that movement was pretty blatant, and I was intrigued to find in this year's small print that it is even more blatant this time. Standard spending assessment was defined until this year as
"representing an appropriate level of budget requirement to provide a standard level of service".
However, paragraph 3.2 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999/2000" refers to the SSA calculation as follows:
"The calculation makes use of information reflecting demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area."
In other words, SSA means whatever Ministers want it to mean in the month in which they set the assessment. I should, of course, have expected that. The same subjective approach has been taken towards capping.
When the draft reports were announced, the Secretary of State took great pleasure in informing me that there would be an above-inflation increase for Surrey. By that, he meant Surrey county council, not the districts, and he neglected to point out a few disturbing factors. Almost all the increase went into the education SSA, and we have had letters pushing for effective hypothecation of that grant.
The Secretary of State did not say that the social services grant in Surrey has been severely damaged, and other hon. Members have noted the same for their areas. The community care grant has been cut by £6.5 million
1166
this year, a cut that entirely fails to recognise projects set in train this year that have continuing commitments into next year, and possibly beyond.
The grant changes have been offset to some degree. The means by which the Government are covering the trend is by a one-off, larger-than-usual distribution from the business rate pool for the district councils. That offset is a just one-off, however.
Even given the SSA for education, authorities will have to find money for such matters as class size increases. The Government want class sizes to reduce, but the school population increase counters that. Money will also be needed for the pay increase for teachers.
Surrey county council is a major preceptor on the districts that collect the council tax. Despite Surrey's enormous effort to find efficiency savings, the county's precept looks likely to rise by 8 to 9 per cent. That precept will be loaded on to districts in Surrey that have already been clobbered with a dramatic loss in real terms. Mole Valley district council's revenue support grant has gone down by 28 per cent. That reduction is covered this once by the increase in the business rate grant, but the prospects are bleak for the years after the one-off offset.
Surrey county council is not the only preceptor: Surrey police take a precept too.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Paul Beresford: I will not. I hope that the Minister does not mind, but I have only 10 minutes.
Surrey police have been hit quite severely. They got a nil cash increase. The increase that they got resulted from boundary changes in respect of the Metropolitan police authority's introduction. However, they have had to continue facing the pressures that were placed on them previously. The precept increase for the police alone is likely to be 13 to 14 per cent.
The Surrey police suffer from a unique and topical addition to those pressures. If the House of Lords decision goes the way that the Government appear to want in respect of a certain guest in this country—General Pinochet—Surrey may have to find an extra £1 million for his guest residency there. Perhaps we could move him somewhere further north. Pleas to the Home Office fell on deaf ears.
It is London where the particularly inspired activities have been going on. Underneath, London has been hit hard on the draft grant. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, North said, there were screams; that is an understatement. As a consequence, we got a special grant but it appears to be for only one year. The long-term prospect is grim.
Again we have difficulty in respect of precept. This goes back to the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan Police Committee, now expanded by the Home Secretary's addition of Labour Councillors, got a report from the official receiver to the Metropolitan police on the Met's financial affairs. To keep a tight budget, the Met is introducing efficiency changes; I understand that there will be between 400 and 500 fewer policemen in the next financial year, including reductions in the special constabulary. As a result, the committee recommended a

1167
precept increase of between 0 and 4 per cent. That did not appeal to the Home Secretary who, through the official receiver, requested a 9 per cent. increase.
The Metropolitan police has in many ways run a tight budget, particularly in respect of its balances, which it has successfully kept low. Now the official receiver tells us that the precept needs to be increased by 9 per cent. to put another £40 million into the balances. The excuse is that it is suddenly possible that a large number of middle-aged policemen—out of the blue if hon. Members will excuse the pun—will rush to retire. That is not reality. The probable reality is that this is the last opportunity for the Home Secretary to use a precept on the home counties, including Surrey, before the boundary change. It is also an opportunity for him to stuff the balances so that the mayor and the Greater London authority will have large funds sitting there at the expense of the people of London.
Time is short but the accusations against the Government of manoeuvring figures to suit themselves seem to be corroborated by the report before us, which I will emphatically oppose.
5.58 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is with some reluctance that I join this debate, which is essentially a debate with good friends. I would rather be applauding, but it is important to bring to the House's attention the serious situation in Lancashire county council and to welcome the opportunity for review that lies ahead.
I confess an interest in that I worked for Lancashire county council for 15 years. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the extremely honourable Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is in her place. For some 16 years, she led Lancashire county council magnificently during—and this context is important—the most terrible times for local government. Local government was under sustained assault and public services were under threat. Lancashire county council held up a shield and strove to preserve decent standards, using balances and all sorts of devices, wit and ingenuity to support places of education and inspiration. It regenerated rundown industrial sites and paid for bus services to rural villages where no private company would go. It sheltered vulnerable people from the contemptible policies of the Conservative party.
Lancashire county council paid dearly for its actions. It was hammered with regular above-average reductions in grant-related expenditure assessments and SSAs, and then suffered an act of calculated malice. The worst of all possible reorganisations removed Blackpool and Blackburn, and left behind 11 districts and an incoherent structure that lacked any real identity. The reorganisation left the remnants of a shire county that was far removed from the typical profile, with large areas of real urban deprivation, as well as extensive rural areas with problems of neglect and sparsity. The county was forged in the industrial revolution and has an aging communications network, and bridges and moss roads that require fundamental reconstruction.
Lancashire has had long-standing financial problems in the past 10 years. It saw increases in SSA and grant-related expenditure assessment of 53 per cent., compared with 61 per cent. for the average county and 72 per cent. for England as a whole. Despite having a social
1168
profile more akin to that of metropolitan boroughs, the shire county had an SSA of £764 per head of population rather than the £862 of metropolitan districts. That is a long-winded way of saying that, despite last year's above average increase, the increase of £25 million in this year's education SSA and this year's increase of 4.5 per cent. against the shire county average of 5.2 per cent., we do not have enough funds to do what we desperately want to do. It is not enough to make up for the loss of grant and the previous use of balances, which are now completely depleted. The county, which was hammered during years of Tory Government, is in a desperate financial situation.
I would like the review to address the ways in which the calculation of SSAs seriously disadvantages Lancashire. For example, we would like to see education SSAs calculated and weighted according to pupil and school numbers. The educational needs index should take more account of low attainment and reduced variation between pupils. We would like to see interest receipts SSAs based on actual past interest receipts, rather than on the size of SSAs, because balances are so low.
I agree with many hon. Members: we would like to see a fairer resolution of area cost adjustments. I think that there is a real danger that the current methodology overstates the actual burden facing authorities in areas with higher labour costs. Without some changes, we will have a council tax of some £730 at band D—which is 37 per cent. higher than council tax for standard spending—and a council tax increase of 8.5 per cent., which means that we could lose £1 million in council tax benefit subsidy. I ask the Government to re-examine that issue.
We have seen cuts in the number of fire engines, and in resources and support for statemented pupils. There have been cuts in highway maintenance—road gritting was reduced this winter. We face possible cuts in the youth service and a consultation document contemplates breaking the long-standing principle that even the smallest rural schools should have at least two teachers. I deplore such proposals, as I deplored the cuts this financial year in the number of homes for older people.
That does not provide best value for local people, as taxpayers or customers, and it is not the quality of service provision that we should achieve under a Labour Government and a Labour county council. At a time when education in this country is being afforded the most wonderful opportunities in decades, I deplore the fact that a letter is circulating in Lancashire schools offering only the prospect of no change. Thanks to years of Conservative depredation, people working in the public services are desperate for change. I ask the Government to do more for Lancashire.
I also want Lancashire to do more for itself. There is an urgent need to modernise, to reduce bureaucracy, to decentralise decision making and trust some of the excellent people working at the coal face in public services, to listen to people and to respond to the real needs of the community. Lancashire needs the scrutiny that a great reforming Government, committed to improving standards, will bring. The task of modernising Lancashire and improving public services would be far easier, the crucial message about the Government's commitment to education, social services and other public services would be far clearer, and the great opportunity

1169
that the Labour Government present would be seized far more readily if the people of Lancashire had a little more help now.
6.6 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As far as Derbyshire is concerned, today's debate is held against a background of the capping imposed on Derbyshire county council earlier this year. The Government make great play of their getting rid of what they call crude and universal capping, but they are replacing crude and universal capping with a system that they are not prepared to define. The new system is to be fairer, nicer, lovey-dovey and more feely—no doubt, it will also be more understanding. However, they are the very Government who this year imposed the smallest cap ever on a local authority: £1 million off a budget of £470 million. The new Labour Government put that cap on Derbyshire.
So small is the cap that, for some authorities, rebilling cost almost as much again as the reduction set on those local authorities. In Amber Valley, rebilling council tax cost £85,000, whereas the reduction secured by that process was a mere £175,000. Those figures were confirmed to me today by the chief executive. In Derbyshire Dales, rebilling cost £29,000, whereas the overall reduction was £130,000. That is the background against which I see the Government's latest settlement.
I see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in his place. He was unable to participate in the capping debate because of illness, so I am glad to see him back here today. At the last general election, numerous Labour Members of Parliament and candidates went up and down the county saying how different everything would be under a Labour Government. The area cost adjustment would be sorted out—evened out—so that there was fairness across the land. No more was the money to go to areas that benefited from the area cost adjustment and were supposedly being feather-bedded by the Tories.
It is interesting to look at what has happened in respect of the area cost adjustment, especially in primary schools. It is no good Labour Members blaming everything on the previous Conservative Government. I know they find it hard to understand, but I well understand that we have had a Labour Government for two years now, and the figures we are discussing are not Conservative figures. The figures are not the Conservatives' recommendations, but new Labour's recommendations to the House, which they will no doubt force through the House tonight.
In 1997–98, in Hertfordshire the SSA was £2,135 per pupil, whereas in Derbyshire it was £1,952: a difference—one that is largely owed to the area cost adjustment—of £183 per pupil. What do the latest figures show? Do they show that figure going down, or the area cost adjustment going down so that there is more equal distribution across the country? No. They reveal that the area cost adjustment is rising.
For several years, Derbyshire county council issued leaflets with its rates bills saying how awfully it was treated by the previous Conservative Government, how terrible was the difference in area cost adjustment and how the world would change when new Labour came into
1170
office: the universe would be nicer; the Derwent would flow with milk and honey and we would all go around smiling.
Mr. David Taylor: Not you.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—I am not smiling. That is because my constituents have been sold a false prospectus and they do not think that the Derwent flows with milk and honey because the area cost adjustment has increased instead of decreased.
Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not because of the 10-minute rule on speeches. Under the previous Government, there was a full day's debate on the local government finance motion, and I should have liked such a debate today.
When the Conservative Government were responsible for primary schools, the area cost adjustment was £183 per pupil and now it is £197. That increase has nothing to do with the previous Government and everything to do with the new Labour Government. The same is true for the area cost adjustment for secondary schools because in the last year for which the Conservatives were responsible for that, Hertfordshire's advantage over Derbyshire amounted to £224 per pupil. The latest figure, for 1999–2000, is £234 per pupil.
I am not the only person who feels disappointed about that. I received a letter that the headmaster of Queen Elizabeth's grammar school in Ashbourne sent to parents. HON. MEMBERS: "Grammar school?"] Yes, a grammar school. I suggest that hon. Members come to Ashbourne because they would find that Queen Elizabeth's is a grammar school in name because of its foundation, but that it is a comprehensive school that takes pupils from every background. I dislike the way in which the words "grammar school" are regarded by Labour Members as swear words. It is true that the school is not in a catchment area to which the Prime Minister could send his children.
The headmaster said:
"The present Government pledged whilst in opposition to change the system of financing schools to make it more equitable. They have not done so. As a result my professional association, the Secondary Heads Association, has decided to join in a national campaign to secure a fair distribution of educational resources for all children. If you agree with me that it is wrong to deny your sons and daughters resources which are given to others, you may wish to join in this campaign."
It is estimated that if that school was funded on the same basis as schools in Hertfordshire, it would receive £278,000 more than it does at present. That is why I am annoyed and I cannot accept the proposals before the House today.
The Government tried to build up expectations and there is no point in anyone saying that they did not. I shall wait with great interest to read the leaflet issued with Derbyshire county council's rates demand to find out whether it will point out, as it did under the previous Government, how unfairly Derbyshire is being treated by the Government, although that would require the council to be consistent.
There has been a disturbing admission by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and Housing—the hon. Lady has not yet made a speech,

1171
but she did intervene earlier—that no meetings would be held this year because the Government had no intention of changing the methodology. She is nodding.
Ms Armstrong: I announced that in December.
Mr. McLoughlin: I want to be absolutely clear on this. Perhaps the Minister can help me. Does that mean that we will see no change over the next three years in the area cost adjustment? That is a very important question, to which we all want an answer.
Ms Armstrong rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot give way due to time.
For many years, Derbyshire county council has blamed Conservative Governments for school financing problems. I have always maintained—and still maintain—that school funding is much more complicated than that. It is far too complex and opaque. The result, which everybody can see, is that schools and parents are caught in a web of statistics, on which everyone involved puts their own interpretation. I urge the Government to do something about that.
6.16 pm
Mr. Derek Twigg: I have a somewhat different perspective on this debate, which I shall elucidate.
We must recognise the importance of local government and the crucial, pivotal role that it plays in delivering many of our election pledges. Local authorities' important role in bringing about the improvements that we want—a better society and better local government—cannot be underestimated.
My council, Halton, is one of the new unitary authorities, which are very much in the front line for raising standards in schools and providing better services for young and old alike. Like many councils, Halton plays a pivotal role in other issues, such as introducing the new deal and the partnership within it. Many demands are therefore placed on its time and resources. It has responded positively, flexibly and innovatively to initiatives that the Government have launched. I want to explain why the local government grant settlement is a good one, and show by way of the example of Halton how the Government's approach to local government finance is making a positive difference in my constituency.
My authority is one of the 50 most socially deprived local authority areas in England and Wales. The need to provide better services, especially by raising educational standards and helping children via social services, is vital. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that this is one of the most generous local government settlements since the introduction of the council tax. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's view. The settlement was good for Halton this year, and will be good for it in the corning year, too. We cannot separate the two.
The approach to local government finance, certainly for Halton, has been good. There is clear and tangible evidence that the Government are making a positive difference to the lives of my constituents. More resources have been—and are being—made available. There is clear
1172
water between the previous Government's negative approach and the positive approach of this Government. For instance, under the previous Government, the settlement increased in 1995–96 by only 0.5 per cent. But for 1999–2000, the increase will be 5.5 per cent. The message from this settlement is that the Government want to support local government in improving the quality of services.
In Halton, we have seen an increase in standard spending assessment of 5.9 per cent. It will be spending above its SSA on education—spending £2 million extra on schools. School budgets will be increased and youth services will be better funded, as will adult education. That cannot be separated from other Government initiatives on education. My authority has received more than £2 million in successful standards fund bids. We have seen an increase in the allocation for professional development, and new classrooms. The effect of that on head teachers was fantastic. They have been after the extra money for many years, and it has made a positive difference.
There were five literacy and numeracy schemes in my constituency over the summer. One of them was the very first to integrate special needs children and children from mainstream schools. To see the determination of children on those schemes to achieve something and better themselves was fantastic. The council has also run several projects on social exclusion, and much more.
There has also been a good increase in annual capital guidelines. The need for more school places is recognised, especially in Widnes, the largest area in my constituency.
I am pleased that we have had a large increase in personal social services this year. The increase of 24 per cent. for children's social services is particularly important and recognises the inequalities under the previous system. Areas like mine have a high degree of social deprivation and difficulties in terms of the number of single parents, children living in poverty, and overcrowding. That has been a major determining factor in the allocation of extra resources, which are very welcome in my constituency.
I shall refer briefly to another respect in which the settlement shows the difference between the previous Government and the present one. People who know the north-west know that one of the great landmarks is the Widnes-Runcorn bridge. It is regularly jammed with traffic, because it was not built for the amount of traffic that uses it—we need a new bridge. The existing bridge needs extra maintenance and support. The previous Government and the previous county council did not fund that, but this Government have recognised the problem and have increased the transport programmes from £1 million to £3 million, which will go a long way towards dealing with the problems associated with the bridge. That is another example of the difference that the Government are making.
We cannot separate this year's announcement from last year's or from the other initiatives that the Government have taken. One of those involves capital receipts. For the first time, there has been a relaxation on capital receipts. The previous Government would not do that. Housing Ministers used to blame the Treasury. In Halton, the relaxation on capital receipts has meant an extra £2.2 million, much of which has been spent on

1173
modernising houses, which had stopped under the previous Government, and on central heating programmes.
The settlement is good for council tax payers in Halton, where the council tax increase this year will be in line with the Government's guidelines. The council tax will also probably be, as it was last year, the second or third lowest in the north-west.
When I was the chair of finance on my borough council, and previously the chair of housing, it used to frustrate me no end—and every other councillor—that we could not plan for future years. We had no idea from one year to the next what settlement we would get. That was difficult not just for us as councillors, but for the people whom we served. Numerous minor changes would be made from one year to the next, which could not be explained away and caused even more problems. Now we have stability for the next three years and the ability to plan, which is a massive step forward and one of the most welcome aspects of the Government's approach to local government finance.
There have been important changes to capping. Universal capping has been removed. The Government are retaining some powers in that regard, which is sensible. I support their position. The previous Government would not countenance any change in capping, whereas this Government have listened and moved a fair way down the road.
Many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have mentioned problems in their areas. Clearly, the system must be fairer. It will never be fairer to everyone—that would be impossible to achieve—but much progress has been made. There are many issues relating to housing benefit, for example, that affect my constituents, because there are so many housing association houses in the Halton area.
Change takes time, and it is not unreasonable to expect us to be patient. There is some way to go yet. The Government have made a clear commitment to examine the issues, and they have made a good start. I welcome the local government settlement. Local government must modernise itself, give best value and ensure that its services are best directed at those whom it serves, at a price that they are willing to pay.
Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Twigg: I am sorry—I have finished.
6.24 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) says that this is a good settlement. He might like to come and explain that to people in Oxfordshire where, as a consequence of this year's settlement, families on income support who have children with learning difficulties will have to pay for day-care provision.
At the last general election, I predicted that if there were a Labour Government, counties such as Oxfordshire would be hard hit. If one examines this year's settlement, one sees that local authorities in the south have been hit, shire counties have been hit, and rural areas have been
1174
hit; so a shire county in the south that is predominantly rural, like Oxfordshire, is triply hit. The proof is there. Even the shire county SSA average increase is 5.2 per cent. this year. Oxfordshire simply has 3.8 per cent.—one of the lowest awards in the country.
This year, social services have £1 million more, but last year they had £1 million less. So in cash terms this coming year Oxfordshire will have to cope with what it had way back in 1997. In Oxfordshire, we face the possible closure of a number of day centres for the elderly and respite care centres for those with learning difficulties, and massive reductions in social service provision. The social service provision will be decimated.
Immediately after the settlement, the Minister for Local Government and Housing said on Radio 4 that no council should have to raise its council tax by more than 4.5 per cent. The Labour budget proposed for Oxfordshire county council would see a council tax rise of 12.5 per cent. Even that would not enable Oxfordshire county council to spend its SSA on education, and there would still be substantial cuts in social services. The Labour budget would see a council tax increase of some £285.
The Conservatives have sought to table an indicative budget, which they branded Blair's budget, which the county council would have to introduce if it tried to stick as close as possible to the Government's pronouncement of a council tax increase of 4.5 per cent. That would mean that spending on education was still below SSA, but social services provision would be decimated, like other budgets.
In Oxfordshire, families on income support now have to pay for basic services and the county surveyor has told parish councils that the budget cuts effectively mean that the minor road network will not be resurfaced for at least 50 years. A number of villages are now surrounded by failed road signs. The village of Piddington outside Bicester now has a number of failed road signs.
As a consequence of this year's settlement, hundreds of the most vulnerable people in Oxfordshire will suffer, and throughout the county the infrastructure will increasingly crumble. Most people will find it difficult to understand how the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities could say, the day after the settlement, that the people in Oxford and the rest of the county could expect steadily improving services. They clearly will not be able to.
When I intervened on the Deputy Prime Minister on the day that the announcement was made, he said that this year's settlement represented the best deal that Oxfordshire has had for years. I suspect that that will be emblazoned above the door of every closed day and respite care centre and every failing old people's home. Never before in the history of Oxfordshire county council has that come about.
This settlement for shire counties such as Oxfordshire means higher taxes and fewer services. It is a unique combination of the tax and the axe. Labour's settlement is an attack on the most vulnerable people in Oxfordshire. We shall see a substantial hike in our council tax bills and at the same time basic services in Oxfordshire will be decimated.
The settlement is a disgrace to the Government. I suspect that many people in Oxfordshire who voted Labour at the last general election will now be regretting it; that will be clearly demonstrated in the local government elections later this year. There can be no

1175
justification for this settlement, and no justification for its impact on Oxfordshire. I therefore hope that hon. Members, and many people, will vote against this monstrous settlement.
6.30 pm
Mr. Tony Clarke: I will be brief, not because of the time limit, but because I would not be making such a contribution were I as satisfied as some of my hon. Friends in respect of their settlements. I also believe that, the longer I am on my feet, the greater the chance of my saying something that I might regret at a later date. The Minister would expect a certain amount of criticism. It has been, is and always will be the case that those who receive the lowest settlements will plead their case, but I will try to be constructive and balanced in that criticism.
I of course recognise that this is probably one of the best settlements for a long time—for seven years, the Deputy Prime Minister said—and that the 5.5 per cent. average increase is to be welcomed. However, those at the lower end of that average—the losers—start to feel a little like someone at a party who is stone cold sober, and wondering what all the fun is about, when everyone else is drunk.
Northampton borough council, whose area is in my constituency, has been treated particularly badly and has a paltry 1.1 per cent. increase. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions says that the average council tax increase should be 4.5 per cent., if councils were spending to the average increase in their standard spending assessment. There would be a doubling effect in Northampton. Not only do we have one of the lowest settlements, but we would probably have had to levy a higher council tax because of the problem of continual cutback over a number of years and our inability to deliver to the people of Northampton the services that they expect.
I acknowledge that Northamptonshire county council and South Northamptonshire council, whose areas are in my constituency, have done a little bit better, but that makes it even harder to accept that Northampton borough council has been left in such a position. Northampton has been badly treated for four reasons; two are directly related to the formula and the way that the figures have been calculated, and two are broader, but equally significant.
I have told the Minister on a number of occasions that I believe that Northampton continues to suffer, as the largest non-unitary district council in England. A population of 200,000 means that we are simply in the wrong club, and we should not be there with our district council colleagues. Northampton should have achieved unitary status when its neighbours—Milton Keynes, Leicester, Derby and Nottingham—achieved it; because of that, the town aspires to unitary status but has to accept, at the moment, that its budget of £19.1 million is not enough to meet the aspirations of its people.
Some may say that economies of scale could be made, but that would not work in Northampton because the population data used by the Department is not only outdated, but continually out of date. Northampton is still the third-fastest growing town in Europe. The DETR figure for the population is 194,000. The council accepts the figure of 198,000, but the population is already probably more than 200,000.
1176
Each year, between 2,000 and 2,500 homes are constructed in Northampton. Each year, they bring with them additional burdens for the council, which has to provide additional services. I give an example of that effect. On this year's settlement, we will be paid only for the 194,000 people who the Department recognise as living in the town, but we will have to provide services for the 198,000 or more people who live there. We will also have to find, in the next 12 months, an additional £135,000, simply for refuse collection and street cleaning, for the 3,000 people who will move on to new estates and into new areas between now and next year's settlement.
In respect of the changes to the methodology on capital financing, I also believe that Northampton has been particularly hard hit: 5 per cent. of our £19.1 million budget—£545,000—has disappeared, because of that one change. We pleaded with the Minister that a council such as Northampton, which has been hit so badly by one factor, should be able to phase the change in. We should be able to manage that transition over a longer period, so that it will not have such devastating effect on the budget.
I make no excuse for mentioning the impact that the Easter floods of last year had on Northampton. Even after the money provided by the Bellwin scheme and the insurance costs that were paid, the council faces £300,000 in costs that it knows it cannot recover. Because 2,500 homes were flooded, it was impossible to collect council tax from homes that were uninhabitable. That alone has cost us £500,000.
Given the time, I must cut short my comments. Let me simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister to understand Northampton's difficulties better, and to understand my continuing disquiet, both as a constituency MP and as one who is still a member of Northampton borough council, about the fact that, given that paltry 1.1 per cent., we may be unable to deliver the services that she would want us to deliver. I am sure that, if she understands that, she will understand why I cannot support the settlement until I feel that it is fairer to Northampton and its council tax payers.
Mr. Lansley rose—
Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be right that, of the three hours available for discussion of the local government settlement, an hour and 25 minutes will have been taken up by the opening and closing speeches from the two Front Benches, and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I entirely understand the point that he is trying to make, but this is the way the House always conducts business of this kind. The time that hon. Members take for their speeches is largely a matter for them, and time is now being taken from the time that is left for debate.
6.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has an objection, he should raise it with his Front Bench. Last year, five hours and two minutes were allowed for this debate, and in the preceding nine years never was less than five hours and 20 minutes allowed. This year, the time has been reduced to two hours and 49 minutes.

1177
It is clear from the three speeches that we have just heard why the Government do not want a long debate on this subject. The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is in a minority of one on the Labour Benches in applauding the settlement. Why does he applaud it?
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: No; I have no time.
I will tell the House why the hon. Member for Halton applauds the settlement. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), for example, spoke of methodology changes, and the Government's political fix which meant shifting money from shire areas and London to metropolitan areas: 2.9 per cent. has been lost in Northampton in methodology changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke of Oxfordshire, where a 4.8 per cent. increase in the control total was reduced to 3.8 per cent., simply because of the SSA methodology changes. The hon. Member for Halton is happy, however. Why is he happy? Because the control total increase of 4.1 per cent. was increased to 5.9 per cent. by the changes in SSA methodology. That proves the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) was making about the shift from the shires and London to the metropolitan districts.
Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: No.
That is why the hon. Member for Halton is happy, and others are not.
Mr. Love rose—
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lansley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), because it would be discourteous not to do so.
Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not sure whether it is premature to welcome him to the Front Bench, but I do so in any case.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) welcomed the 7.2 per cent. increase for education. Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to welcome the 5.5 per cent. overall increase in spending on local government in the coming year?
Mr. Lansley: In the few minutes left to me, I shall make it clear that although the Government have increased spending for local authorities, they have not kept in touch with the current changes in spending pressures. Let me give an example. There has been a £2 billion increase in aggregate external finance in England, but an extra £130 million must be spent by local government because of the change in advance corporation tax. It would have been £230 million but for the changes in actuarial calculations. At least £100 million, probably more, will have to be spent on the millennium bug,
1178
and £80 million will have to be spent on landfill tax. Anyone who knows about waste will know that will be compounded by the increased cost of waste charges. The working time directive and the minimum wage will cost £200 million. Then there is the overhang of teachers' pay settlements, and the £70 million extra that is unfunded. If we add all that together, we realise that at least £600 million is being taken out of the £2 billion.
Mr. Pickles: In his brief speech so far, my hon. Friend has explained where the £33 million by which Essex county council is short to fund its services adequately, has gone.
Mr. Lansley: Absolutely. Essex has exactly the same experience as Cambridgeshire. Although we have an increase, spending pressures are such that we will end up with a 10 per cent. increase in council tax. The Government's policies will lead to a higher council tax and a loss of services.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Banbury instanced that in relation to Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) spoke of Dorset and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke strongly of the impact on schools in Somerset. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) perhaps put it best when he described it as another abysmal year.
The impact is on council tax in the first instance. Last year, the average increase was 8.6 per cent.; this year, the Treasury estimates a 7.5 per cent. increase. If we put the two together, in the two years to 2000 the Government will preside over increases in council tax that are three times the rate of inflation. The Government are again introducing stealth taxes through local government taxation. Within the settlement, much has not been done, and that deserves our criticism. The Government have significantly failed to grasp important nettles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke strongly of the failure to remedy unreasonable deficits and disparities in funding for local education authorities. Work should be done on the additional educational needs index and on pupil weighting.
Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) spoke strongly about the need to do something about the area cost adjustment. I understand that, because Cambridgeshire is one of those councils that is beyond the cliff edge in terms of the adjustment. The Deputy Prime Minister says that it is difficult. Three days before the last general election, the Prime Minister, when asked the question, "What are you going to do about it?" did not say, "It is difficult"; he said, "I am going to review it and change it for the year 1998–99."
The Prime Minister did not change it for the year 1998–99. He is not changing it for 1999–2000—he is freezing an unfair distribution system for a further three years. To compound the error of his ways, the Deputy Prime Minister says that Ministers will not take deputations on the subject—they will not listen to the arguments. All the material is being presented through examination of the area cost adjustment, but they will not deal with it.

1179
Through the settlement, the Government have brought further errors into the system. Crude and universal capping is the subject of debate in relation to the Local Government Bill; I suspect that crude and universal capping is precisely what will arise from the powers that the Government are taking through the Bill. However, through the council tax benefit subsidy limitation we have something that is equally crude and universal.
The criticism by the hon. Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was right. As a consequence of the settlement, some of the poorer councils will have to raise council taxes by more than 4.5 per cent. A significant part of that money will be raised from poor people in their areas. In fact, money will be taken away to subsidise council tax benefit for those who are unable to pay council tax. It is an iniquitous clawback system.
Within that, there is a further iniquity. Councils that spend below SSA—and South Cambridgeshire spends 23 per cent. below it—will be penalised in the same way, although its budget is well below that which the Government regard as necessary for providing services.
Time is short. By keeping the debate so short, the Government have limited the opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to draw out the problems with the settlement.
The size of the settlement hides a reality. Over two years, council tax rises will be three times the rate of inflation. There has been no response to spending pressures. Service improvements that might otherwise have been achieved will be bled away in the cost pressures that are being placed on local government, principally through Government changes: a political fix that shifts money out of shire areas and London into metropolitan areas will damage services in many important regions in a way that is iniquitous and at odds with Deputy Prime Minister's initial statement that the settlement was nothing to do with councils' political complexion. Well, perhaps not—yet the damage that will be caused to certain areas of the country by the Government's methodological changes makes clear their intention.
We are looking at a system which is taking money and piling it into some of the councils that are the most likely to waste it rather than to spend it successfully on good services. It is the traditional Labour policy of increasing taxes and piling it into the waste. It is as though the Government have come to the House saying, "Look how wonderful we are. We have turned on the taps and the water is pouring out." Unfortunately, they have left out the plug. It is our responsibility, in the short time available, to tell the Government where the settlement has gone wrong and to oppose it.
6.45 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have had an interesting debate about a settlement which, despite what hon. Members have said, is the best overall for seven years. It is the most generous settlement since the introduction of council tax and it is fair to all councils, not fixed in the interests of one or two. We have learnt quickly that, however much the settlement is, there will always be arguments about why it should be more and why different areas have different priorities. Of course, we must continue to look at that and we will be doing so.
1180
Conservative Members need to remember the miserable local government settlements that they heaped on all of local government before they venture into criticism this year. Education and social services authorities, whether in rural areas or urban England, have done well as we honour our pledges to raise standards in education and improve health and social services. We have made some changes to the way the formula is calculated so that it better reflects the findings from research into local need and patterns of service delivery.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Lady is talking about fairness. East Devon district council has no debt. It is so efficiently run that there is no long-term indebtedness. Despite that, its grant was cut last year, and this year it has not been restored to the level that existed before the Labour party took office. How can that be fair?
Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that Devon county council has an increased award this year, which represents the Government's commitment to putting money into education and social services.
In any formula-based system, change means winners and losers—of course it does. This year, to make sure that those changes can be phased in, we have made special provision to ensure that no council will lose grant next year compared to this year. That applies to East Devon too.
Every education and social services authority will receive at least 1.5 per cent. extra in grant next year. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, the settlement provides for £2.6 billion of extra spending—an increase of 5.5 per cent. on last year. That extra money comes with strings attached. It is money for modernisation and for improving the quality of services provided by local councils to their public. Some councils—we have heard this today—may be tempted to use the extra money to restore past cuts and to deal with past problems. I urge them to think again and to use the new resources to look forwards, not backwards. They should plan for new patterns of service to meet the needs of local people today and tomorrow.
Councils now have three years of financial stability to plan and deliver the modernisation of their services. They can use them creatively to restructure services over the medium term and to achieve best value, safe in the knowledge that, for the first time, the Government have set out a three-year funding package.
The Government have made it clear that there will be no methodology changes in the next three years—during which we want to examine the current methodology to determine whether it can be improved. Simultaneously, we want to determine whether there is a system for distributing grant that is much fairer than the standard spending assessment methodology.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) that he would have an opportunity to contribute properly not only to such a review but to his authority. We should think not only about additional educational needs and area cost adjustment, but about whether we can introduce a fairer system of redistribution.
Jackie Ballard: In the next three years, councils will face the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. The Minister received no letters in support of that proposal,

1181
and 119 letters opposed to it, including one from her own Labour-controlled Durham county council. How will she respond to them?
Ms Armstrong: In the same way as I have responded to the House today—[Interruption.] We disagree with them. Consultation does not entail agreeing with everyone. I should not have expected any council to say that it was in favour of—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) does not want to hear the answer.
I should not expect any council to say that it was in favour of the limitation, as it raises the issue of balancing funding from central taxation and from local taxation. Council tax benefit is currently funded from central taxation. We believe that there should be a balance and are giving local councils responsibility for a small element of it.
I reject entirely any suggestion that the settlement is biased in favour of one type of authority or another. I was staggered at the comments on rural areas made by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Her county is in a rural area. This year, it received a 6.2 per cent. increase in addition to other specific grants for rural areas, for transport and other rural services. She knows that that is true, and that she was simply being disingenuous.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) complained about Essex, which received the largest cash increase.
Mrs. Shephard: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Armstrong: I shall give way in a moment. First, I should like to say some things to the right hon. Lady, who was plainly out of her depth.
The right hon. Lady said that Norfolk received the worst settlement in its history, which—as she knows—was plain wrong. She said that Birmingham received the biggest increase, which also was wrong. Although Birmingham is the largest authority, it received an overall 4 per cent. increase, which hon. Members will know was not the biggest in the country.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk is prepared to throw mud in the hope that it sticks. The Government will deal with the facts, which she has not quite caught up with yet.
Mrs. Shephard: Does the hon. Lady deny the contents of her own table, which shows the reductions for shire areas?
Ms Armstrong: There are not reductions but increases for shire areas—including hers—of 6.2 per cent. Conversely—when was it?—in 1995 or 1996, when the right hon. Lady was in the Cabinet, her Government gave Norfolk county council 0.5 per cent. less than it had received the year before. This year, Norfolk may not have received the increase that the right hon. Lady wanted, but it certainly received a big increase over last year.
Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady simply recognise the fact that, in the coming year—purely because of
1182
methodological changes, on top of last year's similar changes—£43 million will be taken from shire areas, £39 million will be taken from London, and £83 million extra will go to metropolitan areas?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. The overall amount going in is greater. It may be less than if we had made no changes, but it is still a huge increase. How much would you have given?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing the Chair.
Ms Armstrong: How much would the Conservatives have given? We are talking about the distribution of the biggest grant since the introduction of council tax. That is not a reduction; it is an increase.
Brent has had a difficult settlement, but we said that we had to re-order matters to achieve greater fairness. Brent tells me that it is the 20th poorest borough in the country. It is, but it has the 18th highest SSA per head in the country.
Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has listened carefully to Brent's representations over the past weeks and I thank her for that. I also thank her for the extra £2.5 million that she has put in. Will the Government consider rescheduling the debt repayments on the £8.4 million of housing revenue account subsidy that was overpaid under the Conservatives between 1992 and 1995, to give Brent some desperately needed breathing space?
Ms Armstrong: I am sure that Brent will want to come to us and ask for that. I cannot answer that today because it is not an issue for the settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was right to say how generous the settlement is. The council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme does not hit poorer areas harder. It protects the poorest areas by treating them the same as the average areas.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) takes the biscuit. He complains that North Yorkshire did not receive damping grant to bring its grant up to the 1.5 per cent. increase. We used the same principles as his Government, damping on the overall settlement and not on individual methodological changes. North Yorkshire has got 4.7 per cent.
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about the difficulties that his authority faces. It is working hard to overcome them.
Let me turn to the Liberal Democrats. I remind them—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it. In their manifesto, they said that they would spend £1.8 billion per year to a total of £5 billion over three years. Just for the next three years, the Government have committed £19 billion. We have already spent more than they committed for the whole Parliament. They said that they would spend an extra £700 million on health to a total of £2 billion over three years. The Government have committed £21 billion. Either they were not telling us the truth then or they are not telling us the truth today. The Liberal Democrats said today that the gap was

1183
£1.7 billion. The Guardian says that few independent local government analysts agreed that the gap would be that big. The Liberal Democrats need to do some work.
In 1994–95, when the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was in government, Oxfordshire county council got 0.5 per cent. less than it had the previous year. Maybe that is why it has problems this year.
The settlement is the most generous since the introduction of the council tax. There is more money for modernising services, new protection for the council tax payer, better services—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 February].
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 140.

Division No. 58]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Corbett, Robin

Ainger, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corston, Ms Jean

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cranston, Ross

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Atkins, Charlotte

Austin, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Banks, Tony

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Barnes, Harry

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Barron, Kevin

Darvill, Keith

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beard, Nigel

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dawson, Hilton

Bennett, Andrew F

Dean, Mrs Janet

Benton, Joe

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dismore, Andrew

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim

Best, Harold

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Betts, Clive

Donohoe, Brian H

Blackman, Liz

Dowd, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Drew, David

Blizzard, Bob

Drown, Ms Julia

Boateng, Paul

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Borrow, David

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Efford, Clive

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Buck, Ms Karen

Ennis, Jeff

Burden, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Burgon, Colin

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Butler, Mrs Christine

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caplin, Ivor

Foulkes, George

Casale, Roger

Fyfe, Maria

Cawsey, Ian

Galloway, George

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gerard, Neil

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clwyd, Ann

Godsiff, Roger

Coaker, Vemon

Goggins, Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Coleman, Iain

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Colman, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

1184

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Morley, Elliot

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Healey, John

Mountford, Kali

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mullin, Chris

Heppell, John

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Hesford, Stephen

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hill, Keith

Norris, Dan

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoey, Kate

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Home Robertson, John

Olner, Bill

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Neill, Martin

Hope, Phil

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hopkins, Kelvin

Palmer, Dr Nick

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Pearson, Ian

Howells, Dr Kim

Perham, Ms Linda

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pike, Peter L

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Plaskitt, James

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pollard, Kerry

Hurst, Alan

Pond, Chris

Hutton, John

Pope, Greg

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pound, Stephen

Illsley, Eric

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jenkins, Brian

Primarolo, Dawn

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Prosser, Gwyn

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaUeld)

Quinn, Lawrie

Radice, Giles

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rammell, Bill

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Khabra, Piara S

Rooker, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rooney, Terry

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Rowlands, Ted

Kingham, Ms Tess

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ryan, Ms Joan

Laxton, Bob

Salter, Martin

Lepper, David

Sawford, Phil

Leslie, Christopher

Shaw, Jonathan

Levitt, Tom

Sheerman, Barry

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Linton, Martin

Shipley, Ms Debra

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Lock, David

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Love, Andrew

Singh, Marsha

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McDonnell, John

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McFall, John

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Snape, Peter

McNulty, Tony

Soley, Clive

MacShane, Denis

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McWalter, Tony

Stevenson, George

McWilliam, John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mallaber, Judy

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stringer, Graham

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marttew, Eric

Maxton, John

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Meale, Alan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Milburn, Alan

Touhig, Don

Miller, Andrew

Trickett, Jon

Moffatt, Laura

Truswell, Paul

Moran, Ms Margaret

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

1185

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wills, Michael

Vaz, Keith

Wilson, Brian

Vis, Dr Rudi

Winnick, David

Walley, Ms Joan

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wareing, Robert N

Wise, Audrey

Watts, David

Worthington, Tony

White, Brian

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wyatt, Derek

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Graham Allen and

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Mrs. Anne McGuire.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Harris, Dr Evan

Allan, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Amess, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Horam, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Baldry, Tony

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Ballard, Jackie

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Bercow, John

Hunter, Andrew

Beresford, Sir Paul

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Boswell, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Brady, Graham

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Brake, Tom

Keetch, Paul

Brazier, Julian

Key, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Burnett, John

Lansley, Andrew

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward

Burstow, Paul

Letwin, Oliver

Butterfill, John

Lidington, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chidgey, David

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Madel, Sir David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Malins, Humtrey

Maples, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mates, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Cormack, Sir Patrick

May, Mrs Theresa

Cotter, Brian

Moss, Malcolm

Curry, Rt Hon David

Nicholls, Patrick

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Norman, Archie

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Oaten, Mark

Day, Stephen

Öpik, Lembit

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Page, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Paice, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paterson, Owen

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Pickles, Eric

Evans, Nigel

Prior, David

Faber, David

Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Rendel, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Ruffley, David

Fox, Dr Liam

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Fraser, Christopher

Sanders, Adrian

Gale, Roger

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Garnier, Edward

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spring, Richard

Gorrie, Donald

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gray, James

Steen, Anthony

Green, Damian

Streeter, Gary

Greenway, John

Swayne, Desmond

Grieve, Dominic

Syms, Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

1186

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Whittingdale, John

Townend, John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Trend, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Tyler, Paul

Willetts, David

Viggers, Peter

Willis, Phil

Walter, Robert

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wardle, Charles

Waterson, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Webb, Steve

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 (HC 143), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 37) (HC 144), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98: Amending Report 1999 (HC 145), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

National Lottery
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 129.

Division No. 59]

[7.14 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Buck, Ms Karen

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cann, Jamie

Atkins, Charlotte

Caplin, Ivor

Austin, John

Casale, Roger

Banks, Tony

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Barren, Kevin

Bayley, Hugh

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clwyd, Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Coaker, Vemon

Bennett, Andrew F

Coffey, Ms Ann

Benton, Joe

Cohen, Harry

Bermingham, Gerald

Coleman, Iain

Berry, Roger

Colman, Tony

Best, Harold

Connarty, Michael

Betts, Clive

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Blackman, Liz

Corbett, Robin

Blears, Ms Hazel

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blizzard, Bob

Corston, Ms Jean

Boateng, Paul

Cranston, Ross

Borrow, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

1187

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Kingham, Ms Tess

Darvill, Keith

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Laxton, Bob

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lepper, David

Dawson, Hilton

Leslie, Christopher

Dean, Mrs Janet

Levitt, Tom

Denham, John

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dismore, Andrew

Linton, Martin

Dobbin, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Lock, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Love, Andrew

Dowd, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Drew, David

McCabe, Steve

Drown, Ms Julia

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McIsaac, Shona

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Efford, Clive

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McNulty, Tony

Ennis, Jeff

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fatchett, Derek

McWilliam, John

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mallaber, Judy

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Flint, Caroline

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foulkes, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Galloway, George

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Gapes, Mike

Maxton, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Meale, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Milburn, Alan

Godsiff, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Goggins, Paul

Moffatt, Laura

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Moran, Ms Margaret

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Morley, Elliot

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mountford, Kali

Hanson, David

Mullin, Chris

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Healey, John

Norris, Dan

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Heppell, John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hesford, Stephen

Olner, Bill

Hill, Keith

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hoey, Kate

Palmer, Dr Nick

Home Robertson, John

Pearson, Ian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Perham, Ms Linda

Hope, Phil

Pickthall, Colin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pike, Peter L

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Plaskitt, James

Howells, Dr Kim

Pollard, Kerry

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pond, Chris

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pound, Stephen

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Humble, Mrs Joan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hurst Alan

Primarolo, Dawn

Hutton, John

Prosser, Gwyn

Iddon, Dr Brian

Quinn, Lawrie

Illsley, Eric

Radice, Giles

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Rammell, Bill

Jamieson, David

Rapson, Syd

Jenkins, Brian

Raynsford, Nick

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rowlands, Ted

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ryan, Ms Joan

Khabra, Piara S

Salter, Martin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Sawford, Phil

1188

Shaw, Jonathan

Touhig, Don

Shipley, Ms Debra

Trickett, Jon

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Singh, Marsha

Vis, Dr Rudi

Skinner, Dennis

Walley, MS Joan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Watts, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

White, Brain

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Snape, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Spellar, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wills, Michael

Stinchcombe,Paul

Winnick, David

Stoate, Dr Howard

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stringer, Graham

Wise, Audrey

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Worthington, Tony

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Graham Allen and

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mrs. Anne McGuire.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Garnier, Edward

Allan, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Amess, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gray, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Green, Damian

Ballard, Jackie

Greenway, John

Bercow, John

Grieve, Dominic

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Blunt, Crispin

Hammond, Philip

Boswell, Tim

Harris, Dr Evan

Brady, Graham

Hawkins, Nick

Brake, Tom

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Brazier, Julian

Horam, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Burnett, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Burns, Simon

Jenkin, Bernard

Burstow, Paul

Key, Robert

Butterfill, John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Chidgey, David

Lansley, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Leigh, Edward

Clappison, James

Letwin, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lidington, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Colvin, Michael

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cotter, Brian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Curry, Rt Hon David

Madel, Sir David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Malins, Humfrey

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Mates, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Duncan, Alan

May, Mrs Theresa

Duncan Smith, Iain

Moss, Malcolm

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Faber, David

Öpik, Lembit

Fabricant, Michael

Page, Richard

Fallen, Michael

Paice, James

Fearn, Ronnie

Paterson, Owen

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Pickles, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Prior, David

Fox, Dr Liam

Randall, John

Fraser, Christopher

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Rendel, David

1189

Robathan, Andrew

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Trend, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Tyler, Paul

Ruffley, David

Viggers, Peter

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Walter, Robert

Sanders, Adrian

Wardle, Charles

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Waterson, Nigel

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir Michael

Whittingdale, John

Spring, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Streeter, Gary

Willis, Phill

Swayne, Desmond

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Syms, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Oliver Heald and

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

FOOD STANDARDS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That a select committee of thirteen Members be appointed to report on the draft bill on the Food Standards Agency (Cm. 4249);
That Ms Diana Organ, Ms Sally Keeble, Audrey Wise, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Kevin Barron, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Robert Walter, Dr. Peter Brand and the Reverend Martin Smyth be members of the Committee;
That the Committee have power

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;

(b) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

(d) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(e) to communicate to any select committee of either House their evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest; and

That the Committee shall report by 3 I st March 1999.—[Mr. Betts.]
Sir Peter Emery: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The motion cannot be proceeded with if it is opposed.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not think that there is something very wrong with appointing a Select Committee when the Government have already announced—I think quite wrongly—that a £90 fee will be imposed across the board on all food outlets, irrespective of size or location?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the motion is not debatable in any way. That is not a point of order.

Motorway Bridges
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
7.24 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I thank Madam Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. It is a measure of new Labour that the cry is no longer, "To the barricades!" but, "To the parapets!" However, the issue is an important one. I would describe this as my Bridge of Sighs debate, although the bridges in question and the view from them are not as attractive as their Venetian counterpart.
I, my constituents, and many thousands of people throughout the country sigh with dismay when we see the size of bridge parapets. The debate arises from the bridges recently constructed in my constituency, but it has national implications. The M11 link road is still being built in my constituency, through Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead. That is a built-up, well-populated—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has started his Adjournment debate and his time is precious. I should be grateful if hon. Members continued their conversations outside the Chamber.
Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency is a built-up, well-populated urban area and the M11 link road has given local residents all sorts of unpleasant surprises. They have not been consulted on many aspects of the project, their complaints are often ignored, and the local environment has been devastated with little recompense or remedial measures.
However, the bridge parapets are a considerable shock, being low and dangerous. Where Blake Hall road, Wanstead and Gainsborough road, Leytonstone cross the speeding motorway below, the parapets are only slightly more than 3 ft high—hip level for the average pedestrian. At Cathall bridge, where there are major housing estates, the parapets are only a little higher. I have received many letters from local residents expressing grave concerns. I have not publicised this debate locally, but Hugh Jones of Wanstead wrote to me only this week saying, initially with sarcasm:
"Naturally, like other Link Road fans, I have been greatly reassured by the Highways Agency's comforting assertion that, despite the fears of very many residents, this bridge is safe and, at 3 ft 4 in, over a 50 ft drop, conforms absolutely to national standards. Even as I write I can hear the cheers of relief echoing down the caverns of the still-uncompleted George Green tunnel.
But why is it then that beside Leyton Tube station another Link Road bridge has a parapet which comes up to my shoulder—a height of at least 5 ft, I would guess. Do they have a different national standard in London E10 from the one applying in London Ell? Or do they simply think that the people of Leyton are much more likely to jump? And why don't the people of Wanstead apparently deserve the same heights of care and consideration?"
Here are the views of Mrs. Jayham, who wrote:
"I am very concerned at the low level of the railings … Could you please investigate and let me know if they conform to Health and Safety standards? I think it is very important to safeguard the safety of pedestrians."

1191
Mrs. Helen Bostock writes:
"For many months now I have been very worried about the safety of this bridge and have been into the Link Office to express my concern—to no avail. Thank you for your efforts—I hope Glenda Jackson will visit the site and see the dangers for herself."
Jeanne Hayes says:
"I just want to know my children will be safe as they cross the M11 Link Road on their way to Wanstead High School. All it needs is some children to be fooling around or a bully pushing a youngster against the side for an accident to happen."
Louise Buchanan of the Leytonstone 2000 forum says of the low railings:
"I don't know how they got away with it. Everything has been done on the cheap. If this was Hampstead or Highgate, I'm sure that things would be excellent … the bridge is used by a lot of children going to Leytonstone School. I'm not saying that they will throw anything on the road, but the temptation is there. If anything like a carrier bag of rubbish is thrown on to the road when there are cars there, it could cause a pile-up. And if anyone wants to throw themselves off, it would be easy."
Mr. Larry Golding warns:
"The danger to both children and adults must be obvious to all but the blind and indifferent. In addition projectiles of any sort, by accident or design, will cause a disaster or at least serious injury. I can conceive no logical reason for some form of protection high enough to afford better protection"
not being installed.
The link road project manager replied to earlier complaints saying:
"I believe pedestrians using the bridge should feel comfortable because of the extra wide footways provided (3.6 m compared to the standard 1.5 m)."
My constituent Douglas L. Staudte commented:
"The width of the pavement is not in question, although if it was 100 yards wide the parapet would still be low at 3 ft 4 in. I cannot understand the thinking behind it. There is no view to be enjoyed that a higher parapet would obscure. It's a temptation to some idiots to act the fool. It is alarming to look at and a fall would be certain death, if not from the impact then from speeding traffic."
I recount the recent experience of my wife and myself on a bridge with a low parapet when we visited an Essex town. A boy, aged about 10, was wheeling his younger brother in a pushchair over a bridge. The younger boy kept leaving the pushchair, removing his coat and running to the side of the bridge. His older brother kept struggling to bring him back and return him to his coat and the pushchair. My wife and I froze at the end of the bridge as the scene was played out about three times, and I was ready to run on to the bridge if they came close to disaster. Those kids were behaving as kids do; it was the low parapet that made an accident possible.
I have written to the Minister suggesting that she or one her staff visits the Blake Hall road bridge. Plain common sense screams out that those low parapets are not safe.
The replies to the complaints are brief. They repeat that the height complies with the national standard. I have examined that standard, which is contained in section 2.19 of the Highways Agency document BD52/93. The minimum height for a pedestrian parapet is 1,000 mm, which is 3 ft 3.4 in. A footbridge parapet, except over a railway, is a little higher at 1,150 mm. On all bridges over railways, parapets must be 1,250 mm high or, in some circumstances, 1,500 mm. Interestingly, the minimum height for a parapet on a bridleway is 1,800 mm, which is probably just the right height to fall or be thrown from a horse.
1192
The footbridge standard is low, but why is it higher than the standard for pedestrian parapets in urban areas? The standard is higher for bridges over railways. Are motorists' lives deemed to be less important? In my constituency, London Underground has insisted that the bridges over the Central line be covered by tunnels. That implies a wish to avoid debris coming from bridges. If that is the case for the tube, why not for the motorway? After regurgitating the national standard justification, the Minister at least added the caveat,
"unless you have any evidence to the contrary".
First, what is the evidence for that national standard? Apparently, it has been in place since the 1960s. Where did it come from? When was it last reviewed? Has there been any public consultation about it? What recent trends in public safety requirements have been taken into account?
Secondly, I have recent evidence. The Guardian of 30 November 1998 carried the headline, "Brothers die in separate falls from road bridge." The article states:
"A young man plunged to his death from a motorway bridge yesterday just feet from where his brother slipped and died in a similar accident eight weeks ago. Andrew McKay, aged 21, was sitting on the handrail contemplating his brother when he appeared to overbalance, said relatives. He died from head injuries sustained in the 33 ft fall on to the M8, yards from his home in Riddrie, Glasgow. Strathclyde police said there were no suspicious circumstances and that it was a tragic, bizarre coincidence. On October 3 David McKay, aged 17, slipped while hanging over the bridge railings to impress his new girl friend."
The article quotes the boys' father as calling for motorway bridges to be made safer. He said:
"The railings should be higher so it's harder for kids to climb up on them".
So Minister, there is evidence of two recent deaths that were put down to the national standard.
I have more compelling evidence. Paul Watters, head of roads and transport policy for the Automobile Association has written to me about objects thrown from bridge parapets. He writes:
"incidents of this type, whilst fortunately still rare, are increasing.
We are aware of the incident on 1 February 1999 on the M23 at Pease Pottage when a large lump of wood struck a car and injured the driver."
I believe that the lump went right through the windscreen and through the child seat like a stake. Fortunately, a child was not in the seat. Mr. Watters continues:
"There was a case on the M3 at Odiham Hampshire about 18 months ago when a male was gravely injured after concrete was thrown on to his car. There have also been incidents in the North—a woman suffered eye injuries just before Christmas on a northern motorway. I also recall someone throwing themselves from a bridge and subsequently going through the windscreen of a vehicle on the M3 near Eastleigh last year. Whilst these atrocious acts are isolated, random and rare we want to know the extent of the problem, and what can be done. It would certainly be reassuring to hear that the Highways Agency will agree to providing extra barrier (height) protection at bridges which are considered more at risk than others e. g. close to large housing estates or where there is a lot of late hour pedestrian traffic—this needs to be provided to deter trouble, rather than after it has occurred."
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has communicated to me that some concrete from the underside of the B5385 bridge fell on to the road on the evening of 8 December. I understand from him that there are bridges with a similar problem on the M1 and the M45. I hope that that point will be taken seriously by the Government, and acted on.

1193
The Minister told me that she would consider any
"exceptional safety case for higher parapets".
The AA makes that case, but more generally—not on an individual bridge basis, which would result in relatively few departing from the national standard. That national standard needs to be reviewed and changed. The Minister also wrote to me saying,
"There have been incidents of people committing suicide by leaping from a bridge but increasing the height of the parapets is no deterrent to such acts … increasing the height of parapets is unlikely to deter anyone intent on vandalism."
I hope that she will not repeat that line, which was given to her by officials, as most people would regard it as incredible. Low parapets make activity easy for those with such intent. Higher parapets make it difficult.
Some would argue that cost is a reason, but I suspect that the building of lower parapets was motivated by aesthetics. If so, it shows the stupidity of transport officials in thinking that one policy applies to all bridges. It is just not good enough. If the consideration of aesthetics is to be a factor—I do not object to that—higher ornamental railings and mesh should be used. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is living in a "Dixon of Dock Green" dream world on this matter. Public safety must be the paramount priority.
I have raised in the House the issue of corporate neglect. Now I have raised this matter in the House. If nothing is done, any future accident will involve an element of corporate culpability. The corporation in this case will be the DETR. I say to the Minister: "Do not be neglectful. Raise the height. Raise the standard."
7.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate which, as he pointed out, is of particular importance to himself and his constituents. Grateful though I am for the compliment paid to my constituency by one of his constituents, and as is the lot for most hon. Members, it is highly unlikely that any constituent would regard the Hampstead and Highgate environment as perfect.
"The Design of Highway Bridge Parapets"—departmental standard BD52/93, to which my hon. Friend referred—replaced and updated standards that were first issued in January 1967. That standard sets out how a bridge parapet should be built, not only to provide security for pedestrians, but to contain and redirect safely vehicles that have gone out of control. Parapets are generally designed to provide what is known as normal containment, which means that they are required to have the capability to contain and safely redirect a 1.5 tonne car if it should hit a parapet at an angle of 20 degrees, when travelling at 70 mph.
This level of containment has been the design requirement since standards were first developed. It was not until August 1972 that test procedures were sufficiently advanced to be included in the standard. Since then, full-scale vehicle impact testing has been a mandatory requirement.
1194
In 1982 a parapet was introduced to provide a higher standard of containment. It is designed to contain and safely redirect a 30 tonne vehicle travelling at 40 mph if it should hit the parapet at an angle of 20 degrees. That was developed in response to a requirement to provide increased strength against impact by heavier vehicles at high risk locations, where vehicles going through a parapet could have a disastrous effect on life and property. Although its principal use has been where roads cross high-speed railways, there have been instances where it has been provided to give protection, for instance, to factories using potentially dangerous materials in their manufacturing processes.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the minimum parapet height—3 ft 3 in—has remained constant since 1967, although the dimensions have been metricated and rounded to the nearest sensible measurement. My hon. Friend also referred to the difference in bridges that cross railways. Railway authorities have always required the provision of higher parapets where roads cross the railway. These are set at heights of 4 ft on bridges from which the public are excluded, and 5 ft elsewhere. These dimensions also have been metricated and rounded to the nearest sensible measurement.
There are no records held centrally in the Highways Agency to suggest that those dimensions are inadequate to restrain pedestrians safely. Put simply—I trust that my hon. Friend will not regard this as my simply peddling the usual line—there is no evidence of pedestrians accidentally falling over parapets, although records do exist detailing cases where the judgment was that the deceased most probably committed suicide.
My hon. Friend mentioned a particularly tragic incident in Scotland where, in two separate incidents, two brothers died through falling from a similar bridge on the M8. I understand that the evidence is that the first death resulted from the young man climbing along the outside of the bridge. In the second incident, the young man overbalanced while walking on the handrail. The strong suspicion, I understand, is that that was suicide brought about by the remorse over the loss of his younger brother. Regrettably, despite the arguments that my hon. Friend advanced for the restraining element of height, there is no adequate way of preventing a person from taking his own life if that is the intention.
However, in particular high-risk locations, such as sites adjacent to psychiatric hospitals, higher parapets have been provided in an attempt to provide increased security. It must be emphasised that this is only a partial solution; it is almost impossible to prevent such incidents.
My hon. Friend referred to differential heights where horses are ridden across bridges. On bridges where cyclists and horse riders are required to ride immediately adjacent to bridge parapets, higher parapets are provided. As I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, in both of these instances the rider is at a higher level than a pedestrian would be.
On footbridges and road bridges where there is provision for people to walk, parapets are provided with close mesh sheeting on the traffic, or inner, face. The purpose of this is to increase the difficulty and so reduce the temptation, particularly to children, to climb onto the parapet. My hon. Friend spoke of his particular concerns for children's safety. In addition, railway bridges have the first 2 m of the outer face sheeted. The intention is again

1195
to remove foot-holds and to prevent people from gaining access along the outer face of the parapet, where they would become a danger to themselves and a hazard to those using the tracks below.
There is a continuing problem of missiles being aimed at traffic from bridges. My hon. Friend referred to incidents in his constituency. However, that remains at a low level and, fortunately, does not seem to be increasing. The seemingly obvious solution to this problem is to increase the height of parapets, and provide full height panelling to obscure the view of approaching traffic, but that does little for a visually pleasing environment and high solid parapets are perceived as ugly and threatening by pedestrians. That solution is, therefore, considered only at sites where there is a history of such problems. I am pleased to say that repeat offences of this nature are rare, but that of itself makes it difficult to target resources.
Increasing the heights of parapets within usually acceptable limits has also failed to provide a complete solution, and we have reports from Railtrack which suggest that problems still exist with parapets 1.8 m high.
On trunk roads the strategy is, therefore, to deter incidents of vandalism by increased police patrols and the use of closed circuit television cameras. For instance, following a number of incidents of vandalism on the M60, we have been co-operating with the Greater Manchester police to review security, including the height of the parapets, on footbridges over the motorway. There is limited use of cameras at the moment, but the situation is kept under continuous review, and there may be potential to increase the application in the future if it proves to be effective. The use of CCTV on local roads is a matter for the local highway authority.
The parapets on the majority of footbridges across the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road are similar to the many thousands on bridges across trunk roads in this country. The exceptions are where the bridges cross both the link- road and the London Underground Central line. The design of those footbridges was a requirement of the London Underground authority, and there was consultation with the local authority. Those bridges are of high quality and provide a balance between aesthetics and fitness for purpose. They have clear plastic sides to prevent objects being thrown or dropped on to the Central line and to act as a deterrent to muggers. The drawback to that is that, while people on the bridges are visible to the outside world, people using the bridges may at present be able to look into adjacent properties. To overcome that,
1196
and to increase privacy, opaque panels are being provided at the ends of the bridges with screen planting adjacent to the properties.
In the context of personal safety the Highways Agency is also considering the visual aspects of bridge parapets, including the problem of how to deal with historic bridges, and a report is expected in the autumn of 2000. That will take on board the interests of road users and other organisations in the general appearance of bridges, and will examine the potential conflict that can arise when measures are introduced to deal with aspects of vandalism.
Mr. Cohen: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, which is important. But she said that the parapet size in my constituency is the same as that of thousands of bridges throughout Britain. Does the national standard take no account of well-populated urban areas?
Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not claiming that his is the only constituency in a well-populated urban area. Well-populated urban areas occur throughout the country.
The Highways Agency has been active, along with other interested parties, in the production of British Standard 6779—"Highway Parapets for Bridges and Other Structures". The contents of that are essentially a restatement of the requirements currently contained in departmental standards, with additions and amendments to reflect the latest research findings. The Highways Agency will be adopting all the parts of this document. The Highways Agency has also contributed to the production of the harmonised European Standard EN 1317, and it is pleasing to note that the document reflects the United Kingdom's requirements.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. He has raised the matter through correspondence and the media, and I know that he is motivated by a desire to protect the safety of his constituents. I hope that, given the reasons that I have outlined, he is content that the pedestrians of Leyton and Wanstead are as safe as the thousands of other people in this country who use bridges every day. However, if he has not been satisfied by what I have said this evening, I have little doubt that he will contact me again, and I shall, of course, always listen to what he has to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made towards equality of opportunity in the Civil Service. [69526]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I am publishing today a statistical report on equal opportunities in the Civil Service: "Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service Data Summary 1998". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and will be made available on the internet.

  The report shows a continuing improvement in the proportion of people from those groups which are currently under-represented in most Civil Service management grades: women, ethnic minority staff and staff with disabilities. For example, the proportion of women at Higher Executive Officer level and above has risen to 26% in 1998 from 11% in 1984. In the Senior Civil Service, women now represent 18% of staff. The representation of ethnic minority staff at the first management level (Executive Officer) has increased to 5.1% from 2.9% in 1989. The overall proportion of staff with disabilities has increased to 4% from 3.8% in 1997.

  Progress has been made but much remains to be done before the Service, at all levels, reflects society.

  Later today, Sir Richard Wilson, the Head of the Home Civil Service and I plan to launch a Charter for action to redress the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the Senior Civil Service agreed with the Civil Service trades unions. The Charter has been endorsed by all Civil Service Heads of Department.

  I am personally committed to a fair Civil Service in which diversity and equality of opportunity are valued. I aim to ensure that equal opportunities issues generally receive a high profile.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many sports have formally undertaken to participate in the United Kingdom Sports Institute. [68113]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The United Kingdom Sports Institute will offer a network of first class services and facilities to a range of Olympic and other non-commercial sports. Major spectator sports will also be able to tap into the top quality sports science, medicine, nutrition and coaching expertise available.
  694
  The Sports Councils and Phoenix Sports Limited (the company established by the Sheffield Consortium) have been obtaining the views of Athletics, Netball, Squash, Swimming, Table Tennis and Triathlon to confirm exactly what their requirements are at the site in Sheffield. In addition to this, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has written seeking confirmation that they are happy with current proposals.

  In parallel, the Home Country Sports Councils have been developing the proposed network centres throughout the country. Proposals for Scotland have already been made public. In England, the English Sports Council has been consulting widely with the governing bodies of sport over the past six months. This has included discussion with the newly appointed Performance Directors who have brought their own views on the most appropriate high performance structure for their sport. They are best placed to tell us what their sport needs and it is only sensible that we listen to what they have to say. I plan to make a more comprehensive announcement soon.

  Osborne House
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are his plans for the King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. [69804]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  After very careful consideration, my right hon. Friend has decided that it is no longer appropriate to run part of Osborne House as a convalescent and residential home for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces and Civil Service. My right hon. Friend will be seeking, therefore, Parliament's approval to repeal the provisions of the Osborne Estate Act 1902 which places this responsibility on him. In the meantime, the home will remain open. The demand for residential and convalescent facilities has declined. The current costs to the taxpayer of running the home are around £500,000 each year, net of income. English Heritage meets additional costs for the care of the fabric of the building.

  Our immediate concern is the care of the current residents of the home. I am grateful to the Civil Service Benevolent Fund, who run the home on our behalf, for offering to work closely with my Department in finding new homes for current residents when the need arises. The convalescent home will remain open to convalescents, but not new residents, and will be run by the Civil Service Benevolent Fund until such time as Parliament approves its closure. This would be carried out in an orderly way, respecting the wishes and needs of the residents as far as possible.

  The State Apartments at Osborne House will continue to be open to the public and managed by English Heritage who are currently making extensive plans to commemorate the centenary of Queen Victoria's death at Osborne in January 1901. I have also asked English Heritage to bring forward imaginative proposals for the use of the accommodation currently occupied by the convalescent home which will provide employment and help towards the costs of running the Osborne Estate.

  Ulster Orchestra
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Ulster Orchestra over its future sponsorship arrangements. [69293]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Matters affecting arts organisations in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have had no discussions with the Ulster Orchestra, but I am aware of their concerns.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with arts organisations over the timing of legislation to ban tobacco sponsorship. [69294]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Prior to the publication of the Government's White Paper "Smoking Kills" in December 1998, I received written representations from and on behalf of a small number of arts organisations and their sponsors. I also sought advice from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts on the extent of arts sponsorship by tobacco companies.

  Through negotiation, the Government ensured that the EU Tobacco Advertising Directive provided a reasonable time for arts and sports organisations to adapt and the White Paper explained that sports and arts organisations would be given the full five-year period allowed under the Directive to find alternative sponsors.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the present value to arts organisations of sponsorship by tobacco companies. [69295]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has estimated that the total current financial value of tobacco arts sponsorship in the UK is between £1 million and £1.5 million per annum.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences have been issued for the export of British Aerospace Gripen fighters and Hawk aircraft, and GKN Westland Maritime helicopters to South Africa. [64499]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that none of these aircraft has previously been supplied to the South African Government by the UK. Some of the UK's leading defence companies have submitted bids against South African defence procurement requirements. No licences for the permanent export to South Africa of such aircraft have been issued by this Government. However, any subsequent applications for export licences will be considered against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, and against the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
  696
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amounts of export credit guarantee covers provided to Alvis for the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia and for the provision of upgrade components since 1988. [68780]

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Export Credits Guarantee Department cover was provided to Alvis for the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia and the provision of upgrade components. [68705]

  Mr. Wilson
  From data readily available the value of ECGD cover provided for such business since 1988 is as follows:

  Year

  Amount

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  £2 million

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  £5.2 million

  1995

  US$105 million

  1996

  £65 million

  1997

  US$3.2 million

  1998

  0

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the total amount of funding available to(a) South Yorkshire, (b) Merseyside and (c) Cornwall from each of the EU Structural Funds in the last year for which figures are available. [68942]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: EU Structural Funds allocations (including Community Initiatives) for 1998 to the current Objective 1, 2 and 5b areas of Yorkshire and the Humber, Merseyside and South West England are shown in the table. It is not possible to identify specific allocations to South Yorkshire and Cornwall since under Objectives 2 and 5b the Community allocations are made to the whole of the Structural Funds' programme areas.

  Structural funds allocations for 1998

  £ million, current prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  Total SFS

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Objective 2

  80

  25

  0

  106

  Objective ¾1

  —

  28

  —

  28

  Total2

  80

  53

  0

  134

  Merseyside

  Objective 1 only

  66

  47

  0

  113

  South West England

  Objective 5b

  21

  5

  6

  32

  Objective ¾1

  —

  20

  —

  20

  Total2

  21

  25

  6

  52

  1 Estimated

  2 Excluding Objective 5a, regional figures for which are not readily available.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what end use monitoring his Department has undertaken on the use of the electro-shock batons trans-shipped from the United States to Saudi Arabia via the United Kingdom under the trans-shipment licence granted by his Department in 1993. [68198]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), on 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 494.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Punishment Beatings and Shootings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ending 16 January the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [67562]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of paramilitary style assaults and shootings which took place in Northern Ireland during the period 10 January to 16 January are shown:

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Assaults

  0

  3

  Shootings

  2

  0

  Total

  2

  3

  Note:

  Figures may be subject to minor adjustment

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to revoke the section 42

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  1

  —

  8

  1

  5

  7

  February

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  4

  March

  2

  —

  8

  —

  1

  4

  April

  —

  1

  4

  1

  3

  4

  May

  3

  —

  2

  1

  4

  1

  June

  2

  —

  6

  2

  4

  9

  July

  —

  1

  2

  11

  4

  1

  August

  —

  —

  5

  1

  4

  1

  September

  3

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  October

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  November

  4

  1

  2

  2

  4

  3

  December

  3

  —

  2

  5

  3

  3

  Total

  21

  3

  46

  26

  34

  38

  Note:

  Figuers are subject to minor adjustment
  698
  of the Fair Employment (NI) Act notice in respect of the Tinnelly Brothers case of Newry, Co Down. [67749]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make a decision on this matter. When she does, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ending 16 January the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [67561]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland during the period 10 January to 16 January are shown:

  Paramilitary style attacks:

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Shootings

  2

  0

  Assaults

  0

  3

  Total shooting incidents: 3

  Notes:

  Total shooting incidents include those recorded as paramilitary style attacks (2).

  Only the Paramilitary style attacks can as yet be attributed with certainty to Loyalist or Republican groups.

  The figures are subject to minor adjustment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each month of(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [67604]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables give the numbers of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland in 1996, 97 and 98, indicating how many involved Loyalist and Republican groups.
  699

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  14

  11

  7

  12

  5

  3

  February

  8

  14

  12

  14

  7

  8

  March

  9

  18

  7

  11

  6

  3

  April

  5

  18

  5

  6

  6

  1

  May

  11

  11

  7

  4

  8

  3

  June

  10

  25

  2

  1

  8

  11

  July

  14

  15

  8

  5

  7

  7

  August

  11

  16

  4

  4

  11

  2

  September

  8

  10

  5

  7

  9

  2

  October

  20

  10

  6

  4

  8

  4

  November

  13

  12

  8

  7

  6

  5

  December

  7

  12

  7

  3

  5

  6

  Total

  130

  172

  78

  78

  86

  55

  Note:

  Figures are subject to minor adjustment

  Deaths due to the security situation, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  —

  2

  —

  —

  6

  1

  February

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  March

  1

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  May

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  June

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  July

  2

  —

  3

  —

  4

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  September

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  October

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  November

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  December

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  9

  16

  5

  17

  37

  Note:

  Figures are subject to minor adjustment

  Bombing incidents, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  —

  —

  1

  13

  2

  2

  February

  —

  —

  —

  7

  8

  3

  March

  —

  —

  2

  10

  7

  5

  April

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  2

  May

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  7

  June

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  3

  July

  —

  2

  3

  9

  56

  4

  August

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  September

  1

  1

  —

  9

  4

  2

  October

  —

  1

  1

  3

  1n/a

  1n/a(1)

  November

  —

  3

  —

  3

  1n/a

  1n/a(-)

  December

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1n/a

  1n/a(4)

  Total

  3

  11

  18

  59

  85

  32

  1 The 5 bombing incidents during October to December 1998 are as yet not attributable to Loyalist or Republican groups, although 2 have been claimed by The Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers.

  Note:

  Figures are subject to minor adjustment

  Shooting incidents, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  January

  4

  2

  9

  1

  17

  11

  February

  3

  2

  4

  1

  2

  8

  March

  5

  3

  9

  5

  8

  5

  April

  —

  2

  8

  5

  9

  8

  May

  5

  4

  6

  2

  7

  1

  June

  2

  1

  8

  5

  5

  10

  July

  7

  15

  11

  47

  29

  2

  700 701

  Shooting incidents, 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Monthly Breakdown

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  August

  2

  1

  13

  1

  4

  3

  September

  8

  2

  4

  2

  2

  1

  October

  5

  —

  5

  2

  1n/a

  1n/a(9)

  November

  5

  1

  4

  2

  1n/a

  1n/a(18)

  December

  4

  1

  9

  6

  1n/a

  1n/a(14)

  Total

  50

  34

  90

  79

  83

  49

  1For the period October to December 1998, other than 7 recorded as paramilitary style shootings, incidents are as yet not attributable to either Loyalist or Republican groups.

  Notes:

  1. Includes all shooting incidents including those recorded as paramilitary style shootings

  2. Figures are subject to minor adjustment

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the RUC has any knowledge of the identity of the(a) persons and (b) organisations who have carried out punishment beatings and shootings during 1998. [67777]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has stated publicly that all paramilitary organisations have engaged in these activities. Organisations' involvement in paramilitary attacks was the subject of a debate on Wednesday 27 January 1999,Official Report, columns 347–97. I would add only that if the RUC had evidence as to the identity of persons involved in this activity they would have taken steps to have the suspects brought before a court. As for knowledge, the Government does not discuss intelligence matters.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a table in the Official Report to show as for Monday 25 January 1999 the number of persons released early from prison under the early release legislation passed as a result of the Belfast Agreement indicating how many were (a) male, (b) female, (c) Loyalist and (d) Republican; how many of each recognised faction there are in each such category; and how many more in each category she expects to be released by the end of March 1999 or as much as such information as is readily available. [R] [67776]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information in respect of subsections(a), (b), (c) and (d) is shown in Table A as at 27 January 1999. Information is held in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners, where applicable, for management purposes. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of HMP Maze, where links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates.

  Perceived affiliation of prisoners released on licence under the 1998 Sentences Act as at 27 January 1999 Table A

  Perceived affiliation

  Males

  Females

  Loyalist

  UDA

  44

  —

  UFF

  17

  —

  UVF

  42

  —

  Loyalist

  4

  —

  RHC

  1

  —

  LVF

  1

  —

  702

  Perceived affiliation of prisoners released on licence under the 1998 Sentences Act as at 27 January 1999 Table A

  Perceived affiliation

  Males

  Females

  Republican

  PIRA

  107

  6

  Former INLA

  5

  2

  Republican sympathiser

  2

  —

  Total

  223

  8

  The information regarding how many more expected releases by the end of March 1999 is shown in Table B. This is based on cases in which the SRC have already issued substantive determinations which give dates for release on licence during the specified period.

  Table B

  Perceived affiliation

  Males

  Females

  Loyalist

  UDA

  3

  —

  UVF

  1

  —

  Republican

  PIRA

  4

  —

  Republican sympathiser

  1

  —

  Total

  9

  —

  Security
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has consulted the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding the Army in Northern Ireland about the proposed strategy document on the normalisation of security in Northern Ireland as envisaged in the Belfast agreement. [68637]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable, the GOC and their representatives have been fully consulted about the security strategy document which the Secretary of State intends to publish shortly.

FOREGIN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 27 January
  703
  1999, Official Report, column 285, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his bilateral meeting with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs and defence. [68947]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The meeting agreed to recommend discussion of Common and Security Policy issues within the framework of the Joint Consultative Committee.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals are employed in the British High Commission in Cyprus; and how many have a working knowledge of(a) Greek, (b) Turkish and (c) both languages. [69050]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 683–84.

  Fishing Rights (Spain)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Spanish fishermen crossing the boundary between Spanish and Gibraltarian territorial waters without authority and his related discussions with the Spanish Government. [69155]

  Ms Quin
  We do not know of any incident in which Spanish fishermen crossed the border between Spain and Gibraltar without authority. On 29 and 30 January, there were demonstrations by Spanish fishermen on the Spanish side of the border which led to the border crossing being closed. While we respect the right of the Spanish fishermen to demonstrate near the border if they wish to do so, there can be no justification for demonstrators obstructing and delaying innocent travellers. We have pursued the matter with the Spanish authorities and have urged them to make it possible for movement across the border to take place in conformity with EU obligations.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Spain in response to indications that border restrictions may be imposed on Gibraltar following the arrest of Spanish fishermen. [69095]

  Ms Quin
  We have made it clear to the Spanish authorities that there can be no justification for restrictions on movement across the border between Spain and Gibraltar. We look to the Spanish Government to allow movement across the border in conformity with EU obligations.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out details of discussions on the issue of fishing rights which took place with the Spanish Government in October and the terms of any agreement reached. [69096]

  Ms Quin
  In October 1998, there was a series of confrontations in the waters around Gibraltar. We discussed these with the Spanish Government. We agreed with the Spanish Government that we should seek to revert to the more harmonious situation that had prevailed between 1991 and 1997. We reached an understanding on what that situation had involved.

  Zinoviev Letter
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to publish the memorandum on the Zinoviev letter which he commissioned from his Department's historians. [69659]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The memorandum is being published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish his fourth report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the implementation of the Joint Declaration. [69660]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The fourth report in this series, covering the period July-December 1998, was published today and a copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report includes a foreword written by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the President of Yemen concerning Sheikh Abu Hamza al Misary. [68794]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such representations have been received.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the provision of magistrates courts in East Sussex. [67912]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in their area are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  Following a period of consultation, the East and West Sussex Magistrates Courts Committees are currently considering whether to propose to the Lord Chancellor that a single magistrates courts committee should be formed. Any new Committee would still be subject to the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  Summary Trials (Delays)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the average time elapsed between persons being charged and coming to summary trial in each of the past five years. [67826]
  705
  Mr. Hoon
  The exact information requested is not available. The Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey provides the nearest available information. This survey collects information on the duration of criminal cases proceeded against in magistrates courts three times a year. The February, June and October surveys cover indictable cases (including triable either way); the June survey also collects data on summary cases.

  The date of coming to summary trial is not recorded by the Time Intervals Survey. The nearest alternative collected by the survey is the date of verdict which the survey defines as including the date of a guilty or not guilty verdict (where there is a full trial), and the date of the acceptance of a guilty plea (where a guilty plea is entered).

  For the June 1998 sample week, the survey found that the average time from charge to verdict for defendants in summary proceedings was 62 days. This figures excludes defendants where proceedings were initiated by summons and defendants in proceedings that were withdrawn or discontinued. The figure of 62 days for June 1998 compares with 67 days in each of June 1997, June 1996 and June 1995, and 65 days in June 1994.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which ministers in his Department made use of(a) RAF and (b) chartered aircraft between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999; and if he will list the dates, destinations and costs of such flights. [69075]

  Mr. Hoon
  Neither I nor the Lord Chancellor have made use of a RAF or a chartered flight between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Adult and Community Education
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the co-ordination between Ofsted and the Further Education Funding Council on the inspection of adult and community education; and if he will make a statement. [68868]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many inspections of local authority adult and community education services have been conducted by Ofsted in each of the last six years; and what proportion of Ofsted's total inspections this represents. [68870]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the total number of inspections of local authority adult and community education services. [68871]

  Mr. Mudie
  As part of their current corporate planning process, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Ofsted to increase the number of its inspections of Local Education Authority adult education services in 1999–2000. I have asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to write to the hon. Member about planned and the number of past inspections carried out by Ofsted,706
  and to place a copy of the letter in the Library. As set out in "The Learning Age", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes there is scope for some collaborative working between Ofsted and the Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate in relation to adult and community education and he will consult the Chief Inspector and the Council about ways of achieving this.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each further education college with a category C financial rating, together with the current deficit of each college. [68869]

  Mr. Mudie
  Regular assessments to the financial health of colleges are made by the Further Education Funding Council; the details of individual colleges are treated as commercial-in-confidence. At the beginning of this year, 84 of the 435 further education colleges in England were assessed as falling into financial health category C. This is an improvement on the position at the beginning of last year when 95 of the then 444 further education colleges fell into this category.

  Every year the Council publishes extracts from each further education college's audited financial statements. The extracts include the operating surplus or deficit for the year. The most recent figures are for the year ending 31 July 1997 and were published in December 1998. A copy is available in the Library.

  School Closure Procedures
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received over the new procedures for proposed closures of local authority schools; and if he will make a statement. [69255]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received no representations concerned specifically with changes in procedures for the closure of schools. Under the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, consultation in the local area and the publication of statutory proposals will continue to be necessary before a school may be closed, and anyone may object to such proposals. We are currently consulting on the detailed regulations concerning statutory proposals for changes to schools, and in formulating the final arrangements we shall be considering any points made by those responding to consultation.

  Sikh Pupils
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been given to schools by his Department over requests from the Sikh community for a day's absence in April for their children in order the celebrate the 300th anniversary of the beginning of their religion. [69256]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None on this event as such. However, general advice on categorisation of absence was issued to schools in May 1994. This states that absence may be authorised where the pupil is absent on any day exclusively set aside for religious observance by the religious body to which the pupil's parents belong.

  Highcliffe School
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 306, on Highcliffe School, what factors account for the difference between his estimated figure for the school's balance this year and that contained in the letter dated 20 January 1999 from the Funding Agency for Schools to Dorset County Council. [68989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The figure in the letter from Funding Agency for Schools to Dorset County Council was for the cumulative deficit of income over expenditure for 1998–99, calculated on an accruals basis. My right hon. Friend was referring to the estimated cash balance of the school at 31 March 1999, after an £83,000 overpayment of Annual Maintenance Grant has been deducted.

  Nuclear Physics (University Staff)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the(a) number and (b) age distribution of university staff specialising in nuclear physics research. [68828]

  Mr. Mudie
  The data requested are not available centrally. The available data relate to academic staff in UK higher education institutions in 1996–97 whose primary academic discipline is physics. A breakdown by age and primary employment function is given for full time staff in the following table:

  Employment function and age of full-time academic staff in UK HEIs whose primary academic discipline is physics, 1996–97

  Age

  Teaching only

  Research only

  Teaching and Research

  Total

  Under 26

  2

  258

  9

  269

  26–35

  10

  1,583

  370

  1,963

  36–45

  10

  383

  614

  1,007

  46–55

  39

  145

  819

  1,003

  56 and over

  22

  58

  585

  665

  Total

  83

  2,427

  2,397

  4,907

  Problem Children
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the current systems used by local education authorities to educate children with emotional, behavioural and psychiatric problems who do not have recognised learning difficulties. [68574]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Early identification of children's difficulties which are, or have the potential to become, barriers to learning, and measures to address these, are key elements of the government's education policy. Pilot schemes to develop work in this field are being supported in 1999–2000 through the Special Educational Needs Standards Fund Grant. Guidance in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, a revised version of which is expected to come into effect in 2000–01, enables Local Education Authorities to assess whether children's wider difficulties, including emotional, behavioural and psychiatric conditions, are likely to affect their learning to the extent that they need extra support.
  708
  The Department will take a keen interest in the results of the current survey being undertaken for the Department of Health, Scottish Office and Welsh Office by the Office for National Statistics Social Survey Division on the development and mental health of around 10,000 children.

  Severe Hardship Payments (Scotland)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland applied for severe hardship payments in the latest year for which figures are available. [68770]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, dated 2 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question regarding the number of 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland who applied for severe hardship payments. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  The latest figures available are for the calendar year 1998 and these show that 17,154 16 and 17 year olds applied for severe hardship payments in Scotland during this period.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Departments spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68423]

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

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [68407]

  Mr. Mudie
  Leaving aside the changes in the Department's responsibilities as a result of legislation in the 1997–98 and 1998–99 Sessions, the following changes since 1998–99 have taken or will take place:responsibility for the grant support in respect of projects to address educational disadvantage in ethnic minorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 transfers from the Home Office to DfEE from April 1999;
  responsibility for the regulation of day care under Part X of the Children Act 1989 transferred from the Department of Health to DfEE in April 1998; and

  709
  from April 1999, the Department has a new responsibility, jointly with HM Treasury and the Department of Health, for the Sure Start initiative to provide integrated services for children aged 0–3 in deprived areas.

  Surplus School Places
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the numbers and percentages of surplus places are in each local education authority in England; and if he will make a statement on his policy on surplus places in schools. [69657]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The supply of and demand for school places must be brought more closely into balance to maximise parental preference and ensure good quality education in the most cost-effective way. Empty school places represent a poor use of resources, especially where those schools with high levels of surplus are also performing poorly or where parental preference is not being met elsewhere in the authority. When planning school provision, authorities should initially focus on those schools with a quarter or more of their places unfilled, having particular regard to standards at those schools. The annual survey of surplus school places provides the Department with an opportunity to monitor action by each authority.

  Surplus places by local authority area (excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) at January 1998

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Barking

  1,059

  6

  4

  8

  658

  6

  0

  0

  Barnet

  1,389

  6

  4

  5

  1,458

  7

  2

  410

  Barnsley

  1,262

  6

  3

  3

  1,655

  11

  2

  14

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1,159

  9

  6

  9

  973

  8

  1

  48

  Bedfordshire

  3,463

  13

  22

  16

  5,340

  13

  10

  417

  Bexley

  1,206

  6

  2

  3

  746

  5

  1

  46

  Birmingham

  7,418

  7

  21

  6

  7,236

  10

  10

  413

  Blackburn

  840

  6

  5

  8

  499

  6

  0

  0

  Blackpool

  379

  3

  2

  6

  846

  11

  2

  25

  Bolton

  1,574

  6

  7

  7

  1,021

  6

  2

  413

  Bournemouth

  581

  6

  2

  7

  882

  9

  1

  410

  Bracknell Forest

  592

  6

  2

  6

  1,378

  19

  2

  433

  Bradford

  4,935

  13

  25

  16

  4,694

  10

  16

  420

  Brent

  1,776

  9

  4

  7

  1,502

  10

  1

  58

  Brighton and Hove

  1,877

  10

  8

  13

  1,402

  11

  2

  20

  Bristol, City of

  2,655

  8

  14

  11

  2,951

  15

  5

  23

  Bromley

  481

  2

  0

  40

  968

  5

  0

  50

  Buckinghamshire

  3,212

  7

  16

  8

  2,251

  8

  3

  49

  Bury

  538

  4

  3

  4

  357

  3

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  1,907

  10

  8

  10

  1,187

  8

  2

  413

  Cambridgeshire

  3,907

  9

  14

  7

  1,498

  5

  1

  43

  Camden

  551

  5

  1

  2

  1,313

  12

  2

  418

  Cheshire

  7,709

  12

  45

  16

  4,698

  10

  6

  14

  Cornwall

  2,205

  5

  10

  4

  404

  1

  0

  0

  Corporation of London

  17

  8

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry

  2,963

  10

  11

  12

  2,715

  12

  4

  21

  Croydon

  2,065

  7

  7

  8

  2,044

  12

  3

  414

  Cumbria

  5,206

  12

  45

  17

  3,415

  10

  6

  414

  Darlington

  613

  7

  5

  13

  1,101

  17

  2

  29

  Derby, City of

  1,791

  9

  7

  9

  3,018

  18

  3

  421

  Derbyshire

  5,670

  9

  34

  10

  5,173

  11

  8

  417

  Devon

  4,503

  8

  17

  5

  991

  3

  2

  6

  Doncaster

  5,815

  17

  31

  27

  2,859

  13

  3

  19

  Dorset

  1,945

  8

  10

  7

  2,030

  7

  2

  45

  Dudley

  2,852

  10

  8

  10

  1,484

  7

  3

  414

  Durham

  6,690

  14

  54

  22

  4,740

  13

  8

  22

  Ealing

  3,028

  12

  11

  18

  456

  3

  0

  40

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,507

  9

  12

  9

  1,882

  8

  2

  11

  East Sussex

  2,508

  7

  8

  5

  2,285

  8

  1

  4

  710
  The tables set out the numbers of surplus places as at January 1998 for each local authority area, separately for primary and for secondary, together with the proportion that these represent of total capacity. They also include the numbers of schools which at that date had a surplus of 25% or more, and at least 30 surplus places, together with the proportion that these represent of the total number of schools. The data are drawn from the returns made during 1998 by local education authorities in respect of their schools and by the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of grant-maintained schools in stage 2 and 3 authority areas. Data on surplus places in grant-maintained schools in stage 1 authorities are not available. These returns indicate that there were 761,671 surplus school places in January 1998, representing 10% of the total capacity of 7.6 million places. This is an overall reduction of just over 12,000 places on 1997 figures. The number of schools with a surplus of 25% or more, and at least 30 surplus places, also fell by 167 to 2,529 which represents 12% of the total number of schools.

  The returns also provide the Department with details of what action authorities propose to take on schools with a 25% or more surplus. The returns indicate that in many cases action is being taken. Where there is no indication of action to reduce the surplus and no substantial reasons given, the Department will write to those authorities.

  711

  Surplus places by local authority area (excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) at January 1998

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Enfield

  529

  2

  1

  2

  1,709

  8

  1

  46

  Essex

  10,411

  9

  44

  49

  11,909

  13

  15

  419

  Gateshead

  2,052

  11

  11

  14

  2,858

  20

  4

  33

  Gloucestershire

  5,045

  10

  30

  412

  2,557

  7

  5

  412

  Greenwich

  2,038

  10

  4

  6

  1,661

  11

  2

  14

  Hackney

  1,673

  10

  7

  13

  1,360

  16

  2

  22

  Halton

  2,810

  19

  19

  35

  1,436

  16

  2

  25

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,293

  14

  6

  16

  1,295

  17

  2

  425

  Hampshire

  8,509

  8

  35

  8

  6,139

  9

  6

  48

  Haringey

  887

  5

  4

  5

  850

  8

  0

  0

  Harrow

  1,593

  8

  4

  7

  1,007

  12

  2

  22

  Hartlepool

  787

  8

  1

  3

  863

  12

  0

  0

  Havering

  1,096

  5

  4

  6

  2,150

  13

  3

  417

  Herefordshire

  1,506

  10

  9

  11

  1,412

  14

  4

  29

  Hertfordshire

  8,627

  9

  50

  12

  10,848

  13

  20

  423

  Hillingdon

  1,482

  7

  2

  43

  810

  5

  1

  57

  Hounslow

  2,167

  11

  7

  11

  1,049

  7

  1

  57

  Isle of Wight

  698

  9

  6

  13

  922

  8

  1

  5

  Isles of Scilly

  110

  44

  2

  50

  123

  52

  1

  100

  Islington

  1,709

  11

  10

  19

  1,182

  14

  2

  22

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,171

  18

  6

  25

  720

  18

  1

  425

  Kent

  8,443

  8

  43

  10

  10,662

  11

  18

  417

  Kingston upon Hull

  5,173

  17

  21

  26

  3,309

  18

  6

  38

  Kingston upon Thames

  261

  3

  0

  0

  790

  9

  1

  410

  Kirklees

  2,462

  7

  8

  5

  2,138

  8

  2

  7

  Knowsley

  2,827

  15

  16

  26

  1,599

  15

  1

  10

  Lambeth

  2,784

  13

  9

  413

  2,466

  27

  4

  440

  Lancashire

  10,170

  10

  61

  12

  6,587

  9

  11

  13

  Leeds

  7,841

  11

  37

  15

  5,044

  10

  10

  23

  Leicester

  3,506

  12

  12

  14

  4,516

  20

  9

  43

  Leicestershire

  3,388

  6

  15

  7

  4,960

  11

  11

  22

  Lewisham

  1,233

  6

  7

  10

  2,714

  20

  5

  38

  Lincolnshire

  4,969

  9

  29

  410

  4,158

  9

  8

  413

  Liverpool

  7,422

  15

  33

  20

  4,488

  13

  7

  420

  Luton

  2,366

  12

  11

  16

  891

  7

  0

  40

  Manchester

  8,528

  18

  36

  23

  6,703

  23

  12

  43

  Medway Towns

  1,919

  7

  7

  8

  2,329

  11

  3

  411

  Merton

  655

  5

  2

  4

  1,050

  12

  2

  418

  Middlesbrough

  1,261

  8

  2

  4

  1,104

  12

  1

  9

  Milton Keynes

  3,248

  13

  14

  17

  1,696

  13

  2

  420

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,336

  15

  18

  23

  2,456

  12

  4

  19

  Newham

  1,081

  4

  2

  3

  1,530

  9

  2

  15

  Norfolk

  5,798

  9

  39

  10

  4,268

  10

  6

  412

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,507

  14

  14

  22

  1,822

  14

  3

  25

  North Lincolnshire

  1,502

  10

  5

  7

  1,393

  12

  2

  14

  North Somerset

  692

  5

  3

  5

  954

  7

  1

  10

  North Tyneside

  2,611

  15

  13

  23

  2,251

  14

  5

  23

  North Yorkshire

  5,324

  11

  40

  12

  2,494

  6

  4

  9

  Northamptonshire

  3,962

  8

  18

  7

  5,537

  9

  11

  418

  Northumberland

  3,439

  16

  32

  23

  4,279

  13

  10

  17

  Nottingham, City of

  3,132

  12

  23

  23

  4,559

  29

  8

  44

  Nottinghamshire

  5,238

  8

  24

  8

  10,277

  26

  15

  27

  Oldham

  2,085

  9

  10

  10

  1,113

  6

  2

  13

  Oxfordshire

  4,568

  9

  17

  7

  5,425

  13

  8

  18

  Peterborough

  1,612

  10

  5

  9

  854

  6

  1

  48

  Plymouth, City of

  4,034

  16

  19

  24

  1,665

  9

  3

  19

  Poole

  662

  6

  2

  7

  379

  5

  0

  40

  Portsmouth

  1,407

  9

  6

  12

  255

  3

  0

  40

  Reading

  764

  7

  4

  10

  1,629

  21

  2

  425

  Redbridge

  839

  4

  0

  0

  146

  1

  0

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,975

  13

  9

  17

  1,389

  12

  3

  23

  Richmond upon Thames

  354

  3

  0

  0

  357

  5

  1

  13

  Rochdale

  1,050

  5

  2

  3

  2,082

  13

  4

  429

  Rotherham

  2,189

  8

  10

  9

  1,544

  8

  2

  12

  Rutland

  695

  24

  5

  29

  216

  10

  0

  50

  Salford

  3,446

  14

  18

  21

  3,986

  26

  8

  47

  Sandwell

  1,624

  6

  4

  4

  3,077

  16

  5

  28

  Sefton

  2,754

  10

  15

  16

  2,173

  10

  4

  18

  Sheffield

  3,924

  9

  20

  14

  2,447

  9

  3

  12

  Shropshire

  2,525

  11

  18

  13

  1,162

  7

  1

  45

  712

  713

  Surplus places by local authority area(excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) at January 1998

  Primary 1

  Secondary

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  Actual surplus 2

  Schools with surplus of 25% or more 3

  LEA

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Number

  %

  Slough

  1,205

  14

  3

  13

  540

  7

  1

  49

  Solihull

  1,625

  8

  5

  7

  972

  6

  1

  8

  Somerset

  2,160

  6

  11

  5

  2,510

  8

  5

  14

  South Gloucestershire

  1,345

  6

  5

  5

  1,071

  7

  1

  7

  South Tyneside

  1,597

  10

  9

  16

  1,499

  13

  1

  9

  Southampton

  2,238

  11

  11

  16

  728

  6

  0

  40

  Southend

  1,192

  8

  2

  45

  1,333

  11

  1

  48

  Southwark

  2,755

  13

  12

  18

  1,459

  14

  4

  431

  St Helens

  1,496

  9

  9

  15

  1,438

  11

  2

  17

  Staffordshire

  9,523

  12

  50

  16

  1,522

  3

  2

  3

  Stockport

  2,201

  8

  10

  9

  1,562

  9

  1

  7

  Stockton on Tees

  1,683

  9

  2

  3

  1,590

  11

  2

  14

  Stoke on Trent

  3,844

  15

  18

  20

  1,414

  10

  2

  13

  Suffolk

  4,506

  9

  19

  7

  5,205

  10

  7

  9

  Sunderland

  3,728

  12

  22

  23

  1,361

  7

  2

  12

  Surrey

  10,668

  13

  50

  16

  3,724

  7

  8

  415

  Sutton

  218

  2

  0

  0

  556

  4

  1

  47

  Swindon

  2,032

  11

  13

  19

  1,649

  13

  3

  427

  Tameside

  1,410

  6

  6

  8

  1,234

  8

  2

  411

  The Wrekin

  1,037

  7

  1

  2

  966

  15

  3

  423

  Thurrock

  1,432

  10

  5

  411

  1,969

  20

  4

  440

  Torbay

  144

  2

  1

  3

  333

  5

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  2,479

  11

  8

  11

  1,717

  12

  1

  7

  Trafford

  1,243

  6

  3

  4

  1,432

  9

  2

  411

  Wakefield

  2,841

  9

  14

  11

  1,824

  9

  0

  0

  Walsall

  2,871

  11

  15

  15

  1,579

  8

  1

  45

  Waltham Forest

  1,480

  7

  4

  6

  1,202

  9

  1

  46

  Wandsworth

  1,068

  7

  3

  6

  960

  9

  1

  411

  Warrington

  2,390

  12

  14

  19

  1,054

  8

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  6,699

  14

  42

  22

  3,472

  10

  6

  416

  West Berkshire

  1,124

  9

  4

  6

  1,029

  9

  2

  418

  West Sussex

  5,119

  8

  17

  7

  5,860

  13

  6

  15

  Westminster

  674

  7

  3

  7

  837

  11

  2

  25

  Wigan

  3,913

  13

  19

  17

  1,240

  6

  2

  10

  Wiltshire

  4,322

  11

  26

  412

  2,091

  7

  3

  49

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  515

  6

  3

  7

  790

  8

  2

  414

  Wirral

  3,724

  11

  14

  14

  2,868

  11

  3

  413

  Wokingham

  524

  4

  3

  6

  514

  5

  1

  411

  Wolverhampton

  2,675

  11

  13

  14

  1,929

  11

  2

  411

  Worcestershire

  3,903

  9

  16

  8

  4,842

  12

  9

  16

  York

  2,157

  14

  12

  19

  1,517

  14

  3

  25

  Total

  418,386

  10

  2,005

  11

  343,285

  10

  524

  15

  1 Primary figures show surplus after taking account of any summer entry

  2 Actual surplus is defined as the difference between capacity and number on roll for all schools where capacity exceeds number on roll

  3 Schools with less than 30 surplus places are not included

  4 Stage two for planning purposes (see 6)

  5 Stage three for planning purposes (see 6)

  6 Stage 1 = LEA has sole responsibility for planning the supply of school places

  Stage 2 = LEA and the Funding Agency for Schools share responsibility for planning the supply of school places

  Stage 3 = The Funding Agency for Schools has sole responsibility for planning the supply of school places

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many section 10 Ofsted inspections occurred in the last four school terms; [69001]

  (2) how many inspectors are currently employed by Ofsted (a) in total and (b) in the IQMD division. [69002]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  New Deal (Basingstoke and Deane)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the Unit of Delivery covering the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [66369]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for individual towns or council areas. The latest Government Statistical Service figures for the Mid Hampshire Unit of Delivery, which covers Basingstoke and Deane, show that to the end of November 1998(a) 267 young people had entered the Gateway and 66 have secured

  715
  unsubsidised employment; and (b) 26 had joined one of the four options: two on the Employment option; three on the Voluntary Sector option; and 21 on the Full-Time Education and Training option. 113 young people were on the Gateway, 13 had left New Deal to claim other benefits, nine had gone to other known destinations and 40 had gone to as yet unknown destinations.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the Derwent report on the re-organisation of the Coastguard Service and the Marine Surveyors the incorporation into the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [68055]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The study referred to was carried out by officials and looked into the synergies between the Coastguard Agency, the Marine Safety Agency and their policy and financial sponsorship divisions in the parent Department. The output from the study was policy advice to Ministers in a previous Administration. In line with the normal convention such advice is not released.

  Automatic Ticket Barriers (Undergound)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the percentage increase in revenue occurring to London Underground arising from the installation of automatic ticket barriers at stations operated by passenger train operating companies. [68518]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As part of London Transport's Prestige PFI project, automatic ticket barriers are being installed at the vast majority of London Underground Stations. These include stations managed by London Underground that are shared with Train Operating Companies (TOCs). LT expects that this will lead to a reduction in ticketless travel and an increase in revenue. LT is discussing with Train Operating Companies (TOCs) extending gating to join stations that are managed by TOCs.

  Taking a scenario in which none of the joint stations managed by TOCs on the Underground has automatic ticket barriers and comparing that with a scenario in which all of these stations had ticket barriers installed, LT estimate that the additional revenue to London Underground would be about 0.08 per cent. of total revenue or about £750,000 in one year. The calculation is based on current revenue and fares levels. There would also be revenue benefits to the TOCs, but no estimates are available.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the Driving Standards Agency has made in locating a new test centre in Stafford. [68594]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The provision of driving test centres in Stafford and surrounding localities is being kept under review. I am glad to say that the Agency has 716
  identified a suitable property in Stafford and are in negotiations with the owner. Subject to satisfactory completion of those negotiations, a new test centre could open by the Summer.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made with the reduction of discharges of radioactive waste from the BNFL base at Sellafield to near zero by the year 2020; and how this target will be achieved. [68853]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government are fully committed to the agreement reached at the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Sintra, Portugal last year, on the reduction of radioactive discharges from all sources, including reprocessing plants. Nuclear operators, in discussion with the relevant Government departments and regulatory bodies, will produce 20-year discharge strategies, to assess the options for reducing discharges to levels consistent with the OSPAR strategy. We intend this to be fully transparent process.

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total amount of(a) compensation paid to date and (b) agreed to be paid to contractors in respect of the Polegate Bypass. [68568]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The overall levels of compensation are still being discussed with those tenders who submitted tenders for the cancelled Weald and Downland DBFO Project, which include the Polegate Bypass scheme. Interim on-account payments totalling £3.4 million have been made.

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the reduction in council tax benefit subsidy, expressed(a) in cash and (b) as a proportion of the yield from the standard council tax, that will occur in the event that each authority's budgeted expenditure in 1999–2000 exceeds by an amount equal to 1 per cent. of its standard spending assessment the point at which benefit subsidy begins to be withdrawn; and if he will make the information available to local authorities in machine-readable form. [68927]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information is not available.

  An authority's guideline increase and its council tax increase will depend on factors such as collection fund surpluses and deficits, information on which is not currently available to my Department.

  Aer Lingus Crash
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent communications(a) he and (b) other ministers have had with their counterparts in the Irish Government with regard to the crash of the Aer Lingus aircraft in 1968; and if he will make a statement. [68833]
  717
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the regions has not been in contact with the Irish Government over this issue, I met Mary O'Rourke, the Minister for Public Enterprise, to discuss this, and other issues on 25 January 1999.

  It was agreed at the meeting that UK officials (including British Air Accident Investigators) would meet with their Irish counterparts in order to review all the known evidence recorded about the crash. A meeting was held on 27 January 1999.

  The Officials will work together to try and narrow the possible options for the cause of the crash.

  Driving Tests (Impersonation)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of candidates taking the(a) practical and (b) written driving test were arrested and charged for impersonation of the real candidate between (i) July 1996 and July 1997 and (ii) July 1997 and July 1998. [69009]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997, 17 practical test candidates were arrested and charged with impersonation, one other candidate admitted the offence and was convicted of the offence, and two other candidates were arrested and cautioned. Sixteen cases of suspected candidate impersonation were reported to the police at the theory test stage, which resulted in two convictions. During that period, the Driving Standards Agency conducted 1.7 million practical driving tests and 1.4 million theory tests.

  In the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998, seven practical test candidates and six theory test candidates were arrested and charged from a total of 1.2 million practical and 1.1 million theory tests.

  These figures show that the percentage of tests where impersonations were suspected is well below 0.001 per cent. in all cases.

  Car Parking (Millennium Village)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many car parking spaces will be created for developments associated with the Millennium Eco-Village at Greenwich; and how many daily vehicle movements will be generated as a consequence. [69307]

  Mr. Meale
  The Greenwich Millennium Village will have 1,833 car parking spaces comprising 1,721 for residents, 80 for retail use and 32 for the school and health centre. 670 peak time vehicle movements are expected for the morning and 615 in the evening.

  Wild Animal Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what provisions are in place to prevent the import of animals subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to Great Britain via Northern Ireland; [69284]
  718
  (2) what measures are in place to prevent exotic animals being obtained from British zoos for sale outside the United Kingdom as pets; [69286]

  (3) what (a) measures are in place and (b) steps he is taking to prevent the importation of wild animals as pets. [69287]

  Mr. Meale
  The movement of animals between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or by zoos is not restricted, although the trade in species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is strictly regulated. Those species most endangered by trade, such as tigers, elephants, chimps, etc., are subject to sale control and the owner of any CITES specimen must be able to show that it was imported or acquired lawfully. There are no plans to prevent the importation of wild animals as pets, although the import of some species has been prohibited on conservation grounds. The sustainability of the current trade is kept under continuous review.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the genetically modified trial crops currently being grown in Devon, indicating in each instance(a) the specific location, (b) the crop involved, (c) the reason for the crop being grown and (d) which company is growing them. [69338]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no genetically modified crops currently being grown in Devon.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 40, concerning GMOs, if he will list the research studies which have indicated potential interference with ecological systems for genetically modified crops, indicating in each case (a) the date of the study, (b) the crop concerned, (c) the potential interference identified and (d) the degree of permanence in respect of potential interference. [69336]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am not aware of any research studies with genetically modified crops that have shown any more damaging interference with ecological systems than would be expected from the non GM crop in similar circumstances.

  My previous answer referred to research studies which indicate the potential to interfere with ecosystems if the results were to be translated to the wider environment. For example, the laboratory based study by Hilbeck et al., (1998) Environmental Entomology 27 p480–487 which showed increased mortality of immature lacewing insects fed on moth caterpillars that had in turn fed on genetically modified maize expressing insecticidal Bt toxin. There is no evidence that this non-target effect on lacewings can be detected in the field when the GM maize is grown, but there may be potential for interference and the Advisory

  719
  Committee on Releases to the Environment have advised due vigilance. Similarly, the report by Bergelson et al., (1998) Nature 395 p25 indicates that GM Arabidopsis thaliana, a model plant used by scientists, might hybridise with neighbouring plants at a higher frequency than non GM Arabidopsis. If this were generally true for GM crops, and there is no evidence that it is, then hybridisation with wild relatives may be more prevalent than expected.

  Location

  Crop

  Consent holder

  Alleged infringement

  Holton-le-Moor, Lincolnshire

  Oilseed rape

  Nickersons Biochem

  Isolation distance of 400m not maintained, as GM oilseed rape trial planted close to non GM oilseed rape

  Incergowrie, Dundee (at two sites)

  Potatoes

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Field beans grown instead of bearley as the follow-on crop after the trial of GM potatoes

  Park and Ride (Millennium Dome)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many vehicles per day are expected to use the satellite park and ride sites at(a) Luton, (b) St. Albans and (c) Waltonon-Thames for access to the Millennium Dome; and how many park and ride buses are expected to carry visitors from each of the sites to the Dome each day; [69339]

  (2) if Woolwich football ground is to be used for a park and ride site for the Millennium Dome. [69340]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None of the quoted sites is included on a short-list of six formal park and ride sites recently compiled by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). A car park at Woolwich Arsenal, but not the football ground, is included in NMEC's short-list.

  The NMEC is planning to control park and ride sites in each quadrant within the M25 into which Millennium Experience visitors will be able to book their cars before completing their journey to the Dome on convenient public transport or shuttle bus links. It is estimated that 4,000 spaces will be required on a peak day at the Dome.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the money allocated by Railtrack for the West Coast Main Line is classified by his Department as relating to(a) repair and maintenance and (b) upgrading. [69278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has confirmed that money allocated for the West Coast Main Line stands at:

  (a) £1.34 billion for repair and maintenance;

  (b) £0.8 billion for upgrading.

  Primate Imports (Research)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of each species of primate was imported from which countries to the United Kingdom for research purposes during 1998. [69280]
  720
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many test sites involving genetically modified crops were found to be breaking regulations in 1997; and if he will list in each case the(a) location, (b) crop type, (c) company involved and (d) infringement. [69279]

  Mr. Meacher
  Further to my answer on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 630, in the opinion of the HSE inspector there were three such instances in 1997.

  Mr. Meale
  The number and species of primates imported in 1998 for research purposes were as follows:

  Species

  Common name

  Country of Origin

  Number

  Macaca fascicularis

  Crab-eating macaque

  Mauritius

  1,972

  Philippines

  144

  Israel

  80

  Macaca Mulatta

  Rhesus macaque

  China

  160

  Saimiri bolivensis

  Squirrel monkey

  USA

  6

  Total

  2,362

  Ecological Tax Reform
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what input he had into the position of Her Majesty's Government at the ECOFIN meeting on 26 January in respect of the discussion on ecological tax reform. [69248]

  Mr. Meale
  The meeting held on 26 January was a technical working group discussion on the draft Directive on Taxation of Energy Products. Treasury officials lead for the UK at this group, but their approach is agreed across departments.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the breakdown of the moneys spent by Railtrack by classification into(a) moneys spent on repairs and renewal of existing infrastructure and (b) investment into infrastructure enhancements. [69247]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Railtrack is responsible for the repair, renewal and enhancement of the network and sets out its future investment plans in its annual Network Management Statement (NMS). The current NMS gives details of the forecast expenditure on maintenance and renewals and also gives details of forecast expenditure on enhancements. The form of the NMS has to be approved by the Rail Regulator who monitors Railtrack's investment and has powers to take appropriate action to
  721
  ensure that the network is maintained, renewed and developed in a way which meets the reasonable requirements of the railway industry.

  UPVC Window and Door Units
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the latest guidance issued to local authorities on the use of UPVC window and door units. [69181]

  Mr. Meale
  There are no restrictions on the use of UPVC windows and doors in the UK and we have not issued specific guidance to local authorities on its use.

  Master Mariners
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial assistance is available to existing master mariners who wish to meet the new international requirements coming into force on 1 February 2002. [68994]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Government's Support for Maritime Training Scheme (SMarT), financial assistance of £25 a day (to increase to £26 a day from 1 April 1999) is paid to eligible SMarT Training Providers in respect of officers (including master mariners) already holding certificates of competency or service issued under STCW 78, who undertake approved shore-based training programmes in order to meet any extra requirements necessary for the issue of an equivalent certificate under STCW 95. Officers who are unemployed may apply for this assistance through Oceanair, a company operated by the officer's trade union, NUMAST.

  Marine Guidance Note MGN 53(M), (to be revised in April as MGN 103 (M)) gives full details of the scheme and how to apply. Copies of the Marine Guidance Notes are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of master mariner certificates which will become unrecognised on 1 February 2002, when the new validation requirements come into force. [68995]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The international Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention 1978, as revised in 1995 (STCW 95) came into force on 1 February 1997, and the UK, as a party to the Convention, was given 5 years (until 1 February 2002) to comply with the new certification requirements.

  Since certificates of competency are only valid for 5 years at a time, all current holders have been given the option of either revalidating them until 31 January 2002 under the old requirements, or for a full 5 years under STCW 95 provided they meet with the new requirements.

  All valid certificates will therefore be recognised on 1 February 2002 but it is not possible at this stage to estimate how many certificated master mariners will decide not to revalidate under STCW 95.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to announce the chairperson of the Countryside Agency; [69333]
  722
  (2) if he will make a statement on the qualities required of a person appointed to chair the Countryside Agency. [69334]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is looking for a candidate who:can demonstrate an excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, countryside and rural issues;
  has excellent communication and interpersonal skills, and who is at ease in dealings with the media, Ministers and a wide range of partners in the public and private sectors;
  has experience of managing a large organisation, has the ability to lead and motivate members and staff to ensure that the two existing agencies are successfully integrated into one Agency that is well equipped to take forward its exciting new mandate.

  It has taken longer than we would have wished to find the right person for this challenging role, but we expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Small Public Service Vehicles
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to regulate further who may drive small public service vehicles. [69801]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am concerned that public service vehicles with fewer than 9 passenger seats which may be driven by the holder of an ordinary car driving licence (category B), are being used in the same way as private hire vehicles but without the checks on drivers' criminal records and medical fitness that a local authority would usually make for the issue of a private hire vehicle drivers' licence.

  I therefore propose to introduce regulations providing for criminal conviction and medical fitness checks for those driving small public service vehicles on a category B licence. The regulations would enable Traffic Commissioners to require such checks as a condition of a public service vehicle operator's licence. I will consult interested parties on this proposal.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  John Davies (European Commission Grant)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will pursue with the European Commission their decision to pay a grant of £140,000 to the convicted criminal John Davies in respect of a service to help prostitutes in Hungary; and if she will make a statement. [69195]

  Clare Short
  We have contacted the European Commission on this matter. We are informed that the Commission is undertaking a fraud inquiry into the payment of the funds and their alleged misuse.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of her Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68424]
  723
  Clare Short
  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.

  Colombia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid(a) has been given and (b) is planned to be given to assist people affected by the earthquake in Colombia; and what discussions she has had with representatives of the Colombian Government regarding the earthquake. [69012]

  Clare Short
  In total so far, my Department has contributed US$1 million through humanitarian agencies. In addition, the European Community's Humanitarian Office is providing $1.25 million of relief, of which the UK's share is around $187,500.

  Our funds are supporting the Pan American Health Organisation to deploy 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 Armenia and outlying towns; and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to cover the immediate needs of children including those orphaned or separated from their families. Funds were also allocated to the British Embassy, Bogota for the local purchase of urgently needed medicines and chemical toilets.

  We have been in contact with the Colombian authorities managing the relief operation through our Embassy in Bogota. We continue to monitor the situation and remain in close contact with the humanitarian agencies involved in the relief effort. My Department is willing to consider further requests to assist vulnerable groups where specific unmet needs are identified.

TREASURY

  GDP Calculation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned on methodologies for the calculation of gross domestic product which take account of social and environmental costs of economic and industrial activities. [67676]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 4 February 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the calculation of gross domestic product (GDP).
  The calculation of an adjusted GDP to take account of social and environmental costs would involve the choice of weights for a wide range of possible factors such as health, education, unemployment, air and water pollution, depletion of oil and gas reserves, loss
  724
  of natural habitats and biodiversity, and then the assignment of monetary values to each of these components. The ONS does not believe that it is feasible to produce such a measure.
  The Government Statistical Service is trying to take account of the social and environmental effects of economic activities by other methods. The ONS is working on extending and improving the environmental accounts, which link some of the major environmental impacts of economic and industrial activities, such as air pollution, to the standard National Accounts; while statisticians in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have produced a set of Sustainable Development Indicators covering a range of economic, environmental and social factors to monitor progress in the Government's strategy for Sustainable Development.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of his Department's systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [68932]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: In common with other Government departments, the Treasury makes quarterly returns to the Cabinet Office on its progress in tackling the millennium bug. This information is placed in the Libraries of the House following the President of the Council's regular Quarterly Statement and published on the internet. The last review was published 2 December 1998.

  Tax Credits
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish a draft regulatory impact assessment of the costs arising from provisions in the Tax Credits Bill and the accompanying regulations in relation to the new working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. [69146]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have today placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House copies of a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment of the costs and benefits arising from the introduction of these two tax credits.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish a draft of the regulations relating to employer payment of the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. [69147]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have today placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House copies of a draft of the Tax Credits Schemes (Payment by Employers) Regulations which contain the main provisions relating to payment by employers of the new tax credits.

  Budget Summary Leaflets
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of preparing, printing and distributing budget summary leaflets to United Kingdom households; and how many he plans to issue. [69276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No definite plans have yet been made to issue a Budget leaflet.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost of the United Kingdom's contribution in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1996; and if he will list the costs borne by each department. [68251]
  725
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are listed as follows:

  Total cost of the United Kingdom's contribution in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1996 by department

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  FCO

  6.479

  10.171

  MOD

  224.000

  181.000

  DFID1 bilateral aid

  42.00

  22.00

  Total

  272.479

  213.171

  1 DFID figure excludes EC attributed aid

  Figures for 1998–1999 are not yet available.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to include promoting sustainable development among the objectives of the Financial Services Authority. [68597]

  Mrs. Roche
  The proposed objectives of the FSA are market confidence, public awareness, the protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crime.

  ISAs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue order line cannot respond to requests for copies of leaflet IR165 on individual savings accounts. [68231]

  Mrs. Roche
  Copies of leaflet IR165 are now available from the Inland Revenue Orderline and I am sorry if my hon. Friend or a constituent should have been told otherwise.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been made against compensation for pensions mis-selling; and with what results. [68805]

  Mrs. Roche
  At 31 December 1998, 1,461 appeals against offers of compensation had been referred to the PIA ombudsman, 736 of these have been resolved. In approximately 50 per cent. of cases the ombudsman found the firms' offers to be inadequate.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prepare and publish an index of the relativities between the pound and the basket of currencies which constitute the euro so that the valuation of the pound in regard to the euro after 4 January can be compared with historical values. [68582]

  Mrs. Roche
  A proxy measure for the euro's exchange rate prior to 1999 can be derived by using the European currency unit's (ECU) exchange rate or using the Deutschmark and its euro conversion rate. Data on these are available in table 7.1A of the ONS publication "Financial Statistics".

  Sterling-Deutschmark Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the exchange rate of the pound against the Deutschmark in each quarter since January 1997. [68428]

  Mrs. Roche
  The exchange rate of the pound against the Deutschmark since January 1997 is available in table 7.1A of the ONS publication "Financial Statistics".

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will account for the difference between the forecast of total receipts from asset sales in paragraph 2.31 of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review and Table 4.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report. [68392]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is an error in paragraph 2.31 of the July 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper. The table in the EFSR is accurate. The error was corrected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his evidence of 15 July 1998 to the Treasury Select Committee and his correction was published in its report "The New Fiscal Framework and the Comprehensive Spending Review" released on 27 July.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest estimates of the support costs for asylum seekers charged to each of(a) the Home Office, (b) the Department for Social Security and (c) the Department of Health for each of (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [68388]

  Mr. Milburn
  Asylum support costs are currently divided between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. In 1997–98, asylum support cost £374.6 million, of which £305 million was borne by the Department of Social Security. Figures for 1998–99 are not yet available on a comparable basis.

  From April 1999, the costs of support for adults and families will be funded from the new asylum seeker support budget managed by the Home Office. The sums of £350 million, £300 million and £250 million were allocated to this in the Comprehensive Spending Review on the basis of estimated costs for the period 1999–2002. Actual spend will depend on a number of factors, such as the number of asylum claims and the speed with which these can be handled. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may revise these cost estimates in due course.

  Environmental Working Group
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the interdepartmental working group on the environmental aspects of whole life costing has met; what progress has been made by the working group; when the working group will next meet; and what are the working group's future plans. [68107]

  Mr. Milburn
  The working group has met once, at which broad agreement was reached on the approach to be taken on the environmental aspects of whole life costing.

  My officials are arranging for the working group to meet again shortly, as which its future plans will be discussed.

DEFENCE

  Defence Secondary Care Agency Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the main Defence Secondary Care Agency hospital sites with the number of clinical, professional and other whole time equivalent staff at each site, indicating in each case what decisions over the future of the site(a) have been taken and (b) are still under review; and if he will make a statement. [66468]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The details requested are as follows:

  Royal Hospital Haslar

  Service

  Clinical

  424

  Professional medical

  68

  Others

  43

  Civilian

  Clinical

  89

  Professional medical

  75

  Others

  367

  As part of his recent announcement of a strategy for the future of the Defence Medical Services, the Secretary of State for Defence has declared that this hospital will ultimately close. This is unlikely to be before 2002 and arrangements are in place. These figures update those provided to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 12 January 1999, Official Report, column 146.

  Duchess of Kents Hospital, Catterick

  Service

  Clinical

  110

  Professional medical

  13

  Others

  39

  Civilian

  Clinical

  55

  Professional medical

  13

  Others

  87

  These Details include personnel in the Defence Psychiatric Service units.

  A review by the DSCA of facilities provided by this hospital resulted in a decision to close acute in-patient services. Following a tendering exercise, a contract has been awarded to the Northallerton NHS Trust for the establishment of a Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) at the Trust's Friarage Hospital. It is planned to commence the major transfer of work by 1 July 1999.

  The Strategic Defence Review included provision for the enhancement of the Community Psychiatric Services. As a result, the DSCA are now in the early stages of a comprehensive review. An announcement will be made in due course.
  728

  Defence Services Medical Rehabilitation Centre

  Service

  Clinical

  22

  Professional medical

  8

  Others

  82

  Civilian

  Clinical

  11

  Professional medical

  3

  Others

  44

  Within the new DMS strategy, the DSMRC has a strong future and the DSCA will continue examining new areas in which to maximize use of the excellent facilities at the unit.

  Royal Naval Hospital, Gibraltar

  Service

  Clinical

  20

  Professional medical

  5

  Others

  10

  Civilian

  Clinical

  2

  Professional medical

  6

  Others

  28

  We have withdrawn from full collaborative arrangements with the Government of Gibraltar for the provision of secondary health care. Regrettably, it was not possible to agree mutually satisfactory arrangements. As a result, the RNH in Gibraltar has reopened. Plans are progressing to develop a combined facility that will provide primary care, dental care and essential secondary care to replace the RNH early in the millennium.

  Princess Marys Hospital, Akrotiri

  Service

  Clinical

  44

  Professional medical

  9

  Others

  27

  Civilian

  Clinical

  6

  Professional medical

  22

  Others

  16

  There are, at present, no re-examine the role this hospitl. Its continuing presence forms an inregral part of the new DMS strategy.

  MDHU Frimely Park

  MDHU Peterborough

  MDHU Derriford

  Service

  Clinical

  129

  79

  99

  Professional medical

  8

  7

  3

  Others

  22

  9

  11

  Civilian

  Clinical

  3

  0

  1

  Professional medical

  0

  0

  1

  Others

  5

  9

  7

  729
  The MDHUs are working well, providing an excellent clinical environment and representing good value for money. To emphasise our commitment to this concept, the DSCA are setting new contracts in place with the NHS Trusts.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if representations from the public can be made to the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; [67125]

  (2) when he expects to announce the conclusions of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; and what opportunities there will be for public consultation before final recommendations are implemented; [67126]

  (3) what representations he has sought from (a) members of the armed forces and (b) the public on the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [67124]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, announced in September 1998, is under way and is expected to take about a year.

  The Armed Forces are fully involved in the current Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. During the course of the Review, the MOD will be seeking the views of a wide range of groups including the ex-Service organisations and those responsible for other pension schemes in the public and private sectors. I wrote to a number of interested organisations and individuals when announcing the Review. In due course we shall invite comments from the public in the extensive consultation exercise, but the MOD will, of course, take account of views put forward by the public at any stage.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [68402]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Strategic Defence Review, which was a policy-led, fundamental reassessment of Britain's security interests and defence needs, considered the roles, missions and capabilities of our Armed Forces in the light of the changed strategic situation. The Review also constituted the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

  The overall responsibilities of the MoD remain unchanged. Accordingly, under current planning assumptions, for the period 1998–99 to 2001–02 no responsibilities held by the Ministry of Defence before the CSR will be discontinued by this department or transferred to another department. Nor is it planned that any new responsibilities will be added to those held by the Department over this period.

  A number of responsibilities will, as announced in the Strategic Defence Review, be transferred to new agencies. These are as follows: the Defence Aviation and Repair Agency will take on the aviation repair activities currently
  730
  performed by the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation and the RAF Maintenance Group. Both these old agencies will then cease to exist.

  Responsibility for the storage, processing and distribution of non explosives will be taken up by the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. On launching this agency, the Army Bases Storage and Distribution Agency will cease to exist. All explosives storage and distribution will be handled by the Naval Bases and Supply Agency.

  The Defence Transport and Movements Agency will be an amalgamation of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive, the Air Movements Executive and the Joint Transport and Movements Staff and will take on the current responsibilities of these organisations. The Procurement Executive is due to become the Defence Procurement Agency and will also subsume the activities of the Specialist Procurement Services Agency.

  Also as part of the development of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's relationship to the private sector, the Defence Diversification Agency began operating in December 1998. This agency aims to encourage the transfer of technology to and from industry.

  Although not part of the Strategic Defence Review, the Defence Housing Executive is due to launch as an agency on 1 April 1999.

  Posthumous Pardons
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those serving soldiers who were executed in the First World War in respect of whom posthumous pardons have been sought who were born or resident on the Wirral and (b) the (i) names, (ii) regiments and (iii) offences of serving soldiers executed in the First World War who were in the (1) Cheshire Regiment and (2) Liverpool Regiment. [69243]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The place of birth and home address of accused soldiers were not routinely included in the record of their Court Martial. This information would normally be available in the individual soldier's service records, but the destruction of the majority of First World War soldiers' documents due to enemy action in 1940 means that we have no complete authoritative source for this information.

  The following soldiers serving with the Cheshire Regiment and the King's Liverpool Regiment were executed in the First World War:
  Cheshire Regiment
  Pte. E. Bolton (10263), 1st Bn.
  CM for Desertion.
  Executed on 14/4/16.
  Pte. E. Bryant (20101), 10th Bn.
  CM for 2 x Desertion
  Executed on 27/10/17.
  Pte. J. Cuthbert (28719), 9th Bn.
  CM for Disobedience.
  Executed on 6/5/16.
  L/Cpl. (Pte.) J. Holland (13857), 10th Bn.
  CM for Cowardice and Leaving Post.
  Executed on 30/5/16.

  731
  Pte. (L/Cpl.) W. A. Moon (17790), 11th Bn.
  CM for Desertion.
  Executed 21/11/16.
  Cpl. G. H. Povey (10459), 1st Bn.
  CM for Leaving Post.
  Executed on 10/2/15.
  King's Liverpool Regiment
  Pte. J. Anderson (20062), 12th Bn.
  CM for Cowardice.
  Executed on 12/9/16.
  Pte. J. Brennan (4567), 1/8th Bn.
  CM for Desertion.
  Executed on 16/7/16.
  Pte. J. McFarlane (265427), 4th Bn.
  CM for Desertion x 3 (Guilty 1 x Desertion and 2 x AWOL).
  Executed on 22/5/18.
  Pte. B. McGeehan (2974), 1/8th Bn.
  CM for Desertion.
  Executed on 2/11/16.
  Pte. J. C. Smith (52929), 17th Bn.
  CM for Desertion and Disobedience.
  Executed on 5/9/17.
  Pte. J. Tongue (11850), 1st Bn.
  CM for Desertion.
  Executed on 8/1/17.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department procured electro-shock batons between 1970 and 1986 for deployment in Northern Ireland. [68227]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No records have been found relating to the procurement of electro-shock batons by the MOD.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [68418]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  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.

  Aircraft Flying Hours
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average flying hours in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 for Jaguar aircraft in service with the RAF. [69006]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In both 1997 and 1998, Jaguar aircraft have each flown an average of 20.5 hours per month.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average flying hours in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 for Tornado GR aircraft in service with the RAF. [69063]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Tornado GR aircraft each flew an average of 22 hours per month in 1997 and 21 hours in 1998.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63925]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Between May 1997 and December 1998, my Department's expenditure on these items was as follows:(a) Public Opinion Research: £0.050m

  Note:

  This figure includes only centrally sponsored research.
  (b) Recruitment Advertising: £28.256m

  Note:

  Advertising undertaken by my Department is principally in support of recruitment of Service personnel and civilians. The figure given may also include some other small recruitment related costs, but may omit the costs of some recruitment advertising organised locally.

  Sales Promotions Costs: £0.928m

  Note:

  A significant element, but not all, of these costs are for advertising.
  (c) My Department has no central record of any direct mail campaign having been undertaken in the period.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of departmental personnel treated at NHS hospitals; how many operations were carried out on them; and what was the cost to his Department in each of the last five years. [65780]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the case of Service personnel treated in MDHUs, the MOD pays the host NHS Trust for their treatment. The Department pays on the basis of the anticipated throughput of patients. These costs are adjusted at the end of each year in the light of the actual throughput. The number of patients treated in MDHUs and the cost of their treatment to date for each year since the first MDHU was opened is shown in the table. The available information does not differentiate between those patients admitted for surgical operations and those admitted for other treatments.

  Year

  Inpatients

  Daycases

  Outpatients

  Total throughput

  Cost £ million

  1995–96

  813

  878

  5,189

  6,880

  1.934

  1996–97

  4,246

  2,197

  22,887

  29,330

  12.050

  1997–98

  4,457

  2,571

  28,558

  35,586

  8.622

  1998–99

  4,457

  2,884

  27,146

  34,112

  9.976

  Service Personnel may also be treated in any other NHS hospital as an NHS patient. The DSCA does not have visibility or control over such referrals, which would be mostly for emergency or specialist treatment. The cost of such treatment is in general met by the Department of Health, as for all other NHS patients.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cash limit placed on work by his Department at the RN Hospital Haslar in each of the last five years. [65783]
  733
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Secondary Care Agency took over responsibility for Haslar in April 1996. Since then, the cash limits placed on the hospital's expenditure have been as follows:

  1996–97: £41.345m

  1997–98: £40.314m

  1998–99: £48.999m.

  These are at the price base appropriate to the respective year.

  Details for FYs 1994–95 and 1995–96 are the responsibility of another part of my Department. They are unable to provide the information in the timescale. I have, therefore, asked the DSCA Chief Executive to write to you separately when the information becomes available.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses have been employed and by which Government department at the RN Hospital, Haslar in each of the last five years. [65784]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of MOD civilian doctors and nurses employed at the Royal Hospital Haslar over the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  1997–98

  24

  57

  1996–97

  13

  16

  1995–96

  8

  3

  1994–95

  10

  4

  1993–94

  5

  5

  Until the last year, robust manpower recording systems were not in place to ensure the provision of accurate information. The details above are, therefore, the best that can be provided from central computer records.

  For military personnel, the information requested will take a little while longer to identify. I have, therefore, asked the CE DSCA to write to you separately when the information becomes available.

  No other Government Department has provided doctors or nurses for work at the Hospital.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost for non-departmental work at the RN Hospital Haslar and how many operations were performed on non-MOD personnel in each of the last five years. [65781]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA) took over responsibility for the RH Haslar in April 1996 its total expenditure in each year since then has or is projected to be:

  1996–97: £43.081m

  1997–98: £41.287m

  1998–99: £48.999m.

  Figures for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not held by the DSCA. These are being obtained and the Chief Executive of the DSCA will write to the hon. Member when this information is available.
  734
  It is not possible accurately to divide this expenditure between the costs of treating Service personnel and NHS patients (including MOD civilians) admitted as inpatients or for day case surgery. However, these broadly divide between the number of patients treated, which were:

  Year

  Service personnel

  NHS patients

  1994–95

  2,630

  10,092

  1995–96

  3,524

  10,592

  1996–97

  5,054

  10,554

  1997–98

  5,174

  11,335

  1998–99

  3,982

  8,901

  The available information does not differentiate between those patients admitted for surgical operations and for other treatments.

  Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to public funds of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 in each of the years since its enactment. [68306]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following amounts in compensation were paid in each of the financial years shown to Service and ex-Service personnel following the enactment of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act in May 1987:

  £

  Financial Year

  Amount

  1987 to 1988

  5,000

  1988 to 1989

  710,000

  1989 to 1990

  1,627,000

  1990 to 1991

  2,020,000

  1991 to 1992

  3,413,000

  1992 to 1993

  6,998,000

  1993 to 1994

  8,960,000

  1994 to 1995

  14,338,426

  1995 to 1996

  12,184,000

  1996 to 1997

  14,678,000

  1997 to 1998

  25,807,329

  1998 to 31 December 1998

  21,220,346

  ACEATM
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Aimed Controlled Effect Anti-Tank Mine; and if he will list the project milestones. [68507]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Aimed Control Effect Anti-Tank Mine, ACEATM, is a collaborative programme with France and Germany. The development phase is expected to finish late this year, when France will withdraw from the programme. Subject to national approvals, the production phase would, therefore, proceed bilaterally with Germany.

  On current plans, we expect to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Germany for the production phase later this year. The first production deliveries are expected around 2,003 with UK taking delivery towards the end of the production phase leading to an in-service date no later than 2008.
  735
  ACEATM will be fully compliant with our commitments under the amended Protocol II of the United Nations Weapon Convention and the Ottawa Convention.

  FOAS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Future Offensive Air System; and if he will list the project milestones. [68509]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Future Offensive Air System will replace the capability currently provided by the Tornado GR fleet in the offensive support role in about twenty years' time. As confirmed in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper (Cmd 3999), a wide range of options to fulfil the FOAS requirement will continue to be examined, including manned aircraft, remotely piloted/unmanned air vehicles and cruise missiles. Feasibility studies into the various options are under way and continue to progress well.

  Proposals for a technology acquisition programme are currently under consideration, leading to a project Assessment Phase commencing in 2001. To realise the benefits from advances in technology, and in line with Smart Procurement principles, decisions on the concepts to be taken forward as potential solutions to the FOAS requirements are unlikely to be taken for around ten years.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with NATO nations on the impact of the Year 2000 problem on interchange of defence-related electronic information and on equipment that is in common service; if interconnections between NATO nations are Year 2000 compliant; and if Year 2000 tests are included in multinational military exercises conducted with(a) NATO and (b) other nations. [68255]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The need for close examination of the inter-connections between NATO nations was highlighted at the Allied Year 2000 Steering Group, hosted by the MOD in November 1998. The question of the Y2K compliance of inter-connections between NATO nations is currently being examined by the NATO Command, Control and Communications board.

  The UK is planning its exercise programme to enable Y2K validation to be tested in many areas. Action is also in hand to include Y2K elements in combined exercises with US forces. Discussions with our Allies on other international exercises are continuing.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of his Department's critical systems will be Year 2000 compliant by 1 April. [68261]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: Current progress indicates that around 75 per cent. of MOD's critical systems will be Year 2000 compliant by 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is collaborating with the Russian Ministry for Defence on assessing and rectifying systems affected by the Year 2000 computer problem. [68256]
  736
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: We recognise the benefit of co-operation with Russia on the Year 2000 problem and we have taken every opportunity to brief visiting delegations. MOD officials have recently taken part in discussions with Russia on the problem under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. The issue will continue to be discussed as a priority agenda item within that forum throughout the year.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the testing of all Year 2000 modified systems for which he is responsible was completed by 31 January. [68258]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The latest figures show that 60 per cent. of those MOD systems critical to providing defence capability, and which needed modification to make them Year 2000 compliant, had been modified and tested by the end of December 1998. Current prospects are that work on all such systems will be complete in good time to ensure that UK defence capability is maintained across the Millennium period and thereafter. Dealing with the Year 2000 problem is the MOD's highest priority, other than urgent operational needs.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has developed to support the civil community in case of emergencies associated with Year 2000. [68259]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: Long-standing arrangements exist under which civil authorities can request military assistance in the event of a civil emergency. The extent to which military assistance may be required as a result of Year 2000 problems depends on any identified shortfalls in the ability of the civil authorities to respond to emergencies.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if systems for(a) service members' pay and (b) service members' medical records are Year 2000 compliant; and if he will make a statement. [68257]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: A comprehensive programme of work is in place to ensure that all MOD systems, including those delivering a pay for Service and civilian personnel are Year 2000 compliant, and is on target for completion this year. This year Service pay records are archived to microfiche, for which Year 2000 compliance is not applicable.

  As medical records of Service personnel are paper based, Year 2000 compliance is not applicable.

  Journalists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the expenditure by his Department on paying journalists(a) as an asset, (b) as an assistant, (c) as on side, and (d) on a keep your eyes open basis, over the period from June 1997 to June 1998. [65465]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: From time to time my Department employs journalists, for example to train personnel in media skills. Detailed information on such employment is not held centrally. No journalist paid for work by my Department is, however, appointed directly in the terms of the categories set out by my hon. Friend.

  Organophosphate Lubricants
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what organophosphate lubricants are used in the engines of military(a) fixed winged aircraft and (b) helicopters; and if he will make a statement on possible health hazards for air crews. [66599]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The organic phosphate compound, tricresylphosphate, is present in all lubricants used regularly in military aircraft engines, to enable the lubricant to withstand the load placed on it and to prevent engine seizure. No viable alternative material is available at present.

  The inhalation of mist (containing tricresylphosphate), which can be produced by high pressure systems, or direct contact with the skin, would be hazardous. We therefore have in place a number of preventative measures to prevent air and ground crews from being exposed to these hazards and also regularly review the risks to health.

  Military Training (Indonesian Personnel)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Indonesian military personnel have received training in the UK since 1 May 1997. [67601]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since 1 May 1997, a total of 22 Indonesian military personnel have attended, or are currently attending, courses at UK military training establishments. Indonesian military personnel attending courses at non-military UK educational establishments are not the responsibility of my Department. However, based on the information available to us, we understand that a further 29 Indonesian military personnel attended, or are currently attending, courses at non-military educational establishments in the UK.

  RN Base Faslane
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 460, if he will make it his policy to carry out radiation surveys at the entrance to reactor compartments every 12 hours to coincide with shift patterns during work on nuclear submarines at RN Base Faslane. [67955]

  Mr. Spellar
  I wish to assure the hon. Member that the radiation surveys carried out both within and outside the Reactor Compartments of submarines meet fully our Statutory requirements. In addition to regular surveys, we also conduct continuous monitoring of the air in the Reactor Compartment for any trace of radioactive contaminants. Routine work in this area at Faslane is not based on a 12 hour shift pattern, the normal pattern being one 8 hour shift per day. Radiation surveys are carried out daily. It is not considered necessary therefore to change the frequency of the surveys.

  MOD Land (Halton)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place in the Library a copy of the terms and conditions of the original transfer from the Rothschild family to the Government of land at Halton, Buckinghamshire. [67950]
  738
  Mr. Spellar
  The Rothschild Foundation has agreed to public release of the Conveyance dated 31 March 1919, a copy of which will be placed in the House of Commons Library shortly.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Disposal Sales Agency in exporting surplus Saladin and Saracen vehicles to other countries since 1988. [68790]

  Mr. Spellar
  Records show that neither the Disposal Sales Agency nor its predecessor within the Defence Export Services Organisation has had any role in exporting Saladin or Saracen vehicles from the United Kingdom to other countries since 1988. A total of 37 such vehicles have been disposed of since 1988, all of which were sold commercially either within the United Kingdom or in Hong Kong. If subsequently exported, that would have been a matter solely for the purchaser to arrange, including the necessary export licences.

  Clyde Nuclear Base
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the risk of(a) staff and (b) public exposure to fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel in and around the Clyde nuclear base. [68075]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: HM Naval Base Clyde conducts only maintenance and repair on nuclear powered submarines, during which irradiated nuclear fuel neither leaves the reactor nor is conveyed to or from the Naval Base. It is legislative requirement under the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992 that all nuclear operators undertake an assessment of the probability of the release of radioactive material from their operations that could lead to the exposure of the public. On the basis of such assessments there is no risk to staff or public from exposure to fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which decisions on the future of the TA have been reviewed or altered by his Department since his announcement on 17 November 1998. [68480]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: No recommendations have been made to review the decisions announced on 17 November.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department by(a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) other individuals and bodies on the future of the TA between 4 November and 17 November 1998. [68479]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Between 4 and 17 November, my Department received 261 representations on the future of the Territorial Army. Of these, 95 were letters from hon. Members and noble Lords, and 166 were letters from other individuals and bodies. In addition to these representations, 14 Parliamentary Questions on the future of the Territorial Army were tabled between 4 and 17 November.
  739
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to him on the future of the TA arising from the announcement of his decision on its restructuring on 17 November 1998. [68481]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Since the announcement of the restructuring of the Territorial Army on 17 November 1998, Official Report, columns 749–71, my Department has received 361 representations on the matter, as of 29 January 1999. Of these, 140 were letters from hon. Members and noble Lords, and 221 were letters from other individuals. In addition to these representations, 81 Parliamentary Questions on the future of the Territorial Army have been tabled since 17 November.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Multi-role Armoured Vehicle; and if he will list the project milestones. [68508]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Multi-role Armoured Vehicle programme will provide a family of armoured utility vehicles to replace the FV430 series, Saxon and CVR(T) vehicles. The Memorandum of Understanding for the development and initial production phase has been signed and we are working with our French and German partners, and with industry, to place a contract shortly. Firm milestones will be identified during the development phase.

  FASH
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future amphibious support helicopter; and if he will list the project milestones. [68500]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Future Amphibious Support Helicopter, FASH, is intended to replace the Westland Sea King Mk 4 helicopter in around ten years' time in the role of support of amphibious operations. We are currently assessing a number of different solutions to meet the FASH requirement. Current planning would lead to the issue of an Invitation To Tender in 2001.

  Air-launched Anti-armour Weapon
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air-launched anti-armour weapon; and if he will list the project milestones. [68503]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The air-launched anti-armour weapon is designed to reduce the fighting power of enemy armoured forces as early and as far forward as possible by defeating modern and future Main Battle Tanks, Armoured Personnel Carriers and Self Propelled Guns. It is intended to be fitted on Tornado GR4, Harrier GR7 and Eurofighter. Following international competition a development and production contract was awarded to GEC Marconi Radar and Defence Systems for their BRIMSTONE weapon system on 6 November 1996.
  740
  The first flight of the missile on a Tornado took place in December 1998. Forthcoming milestones for the project are:

  the completion of launcher development in April 1999,

  air firing trials starting in June 1999; and

  flight trials and the demonstration of seeker performance in August 1999.

  Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System; and if he will list the project milestones. [68512]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System programme is still at an early stage, but is currently expected to involve a mix of systems, including a lightweight 155mm howitzer. Other elements of the programme are less well defined at present. The UK entered into co-operation with the US on their Lightweight 155mm Howitzer development programme in 1998, to allow us to benefit from information generated by the US programme, before making a decision on the way forward. On current plans, we expect the howitzer to enter UK service in 2007.

  Bowman Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Bowman project; and if he will list the project milestones. [68510]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: Project Bowman will provide the Armed Forces with a new tactical combat radio communications system to replace the Clansman system, with a planned In Service Date of March 2002. The Prime contractor is Archer Communications Systems Ltd., who are currently completing system definition, including initiating key development work with sub contractors, commencing system integration, and demonstrating technical progress. On current plans, MOD intend to commit to the production and supply of the system towards the end of this year. The Bowman Project will be included in the first wave of Integrated Project Teams from 1 April 1999.

  Terrier Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Terrier project; and if he will list the project milestones. [68757]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: Terrier will replace the in-service Combat Engineer Tractor and will provide battlefield mobility/counter mobility by performing Engineer tasks. Tenders for the Project Definition phase have been received recently from three companies, Alvis, Marconi Marine and Vickers Defence Systems and are currently being assessed. It is planned to place two competitive Project Definition contracts later this year, leading to the selection of a contractor for Full Development and Production. The vehicle is currently expected to enter service in 2008.

  ASTOR
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the airborne stand-off radar project; and if he will list the project milestones. [68501]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Airborne Stand-Off Radar, ASTOR, project is a long range theatre surveillance and target acquisition system required to operate in all weathers by day and night. The airborne component of the system will be fitted in a commercial business jet, which offers the best balance of payload, survivability, height capability and endurance.

  The MOD is currently in the process of evaluating bids for the Full Development and Production phase of the project, and it would, therefore, not be appropriate to make specific comments on any aspect of the bids at this time. On current plans we aim to announce a decision on the project in the spring, and award a contract later this year. The In-Service Date will be dependent on the selected bid.

  Skynet
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Skynet 5 UK Military Satellite Communications System; and if he will list the project milestones. [68505]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The requirement for UK military satellite communications is currently met by the Skynet 4 Stage 1 system, which is being replaced by three new Skynet 4 Stage 2 satellites, the first of which entered service in May 1998. These, in turn will require replacement in the middle of the next decade. The programme to provide this future capability is known as Skynet 5. The preferred option is for the requirement to be met by a PFI service based solution.

  The MOD is currently in the process of evaluating proposals from industry for the Design Phase of the programme and it would, therefore, not be appropriate to make specific comments on any aspect of the bids at this time. The contracts for this phase are due to be placed in February 1999. The Implementation phase is planned to commence in 2002, with initial communication services commencing in 2006.

  Future Carrier-borne Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft; and if he will list the project milestones. [68513]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: As announced in the Strategic Defence Review a Future Carrier Borne Aircraft will replace the Harrier. A decision on the aircraft type is expected to be taken in late 2000. The In-Service Date remains at 2012.

  COBRA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the counter-battery radar (COBRA) project; and if he will list the project milestones. [68755]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: COBRA is a collaborative project between the UK, France and Germany to develop and produce a Counter
  742
  Battery Radar with a capability to locate hostile rocket, gun, mortar batteries at long range. The COBRA project entered the Industrialisation and Production phase with the prime contractor, EURO-ART, in March 1998. On current plans we expect delivery of the first UK Radar System Vehicle in late 2001, with the system expected formally to enter service about a year later.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of British troops which could be deployed indefinitely to Kosovo without causing the assumptions underlying the Strategic Defence Review to be revised. [69189]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The assumptions underlying the Strategic Defence Review were intended to guide force structure planning rather than decisions about individual deployments. A deployment to Kosovo would not invalidate these assumptions.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps have been named for duty in Kosovo. [69190]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps has been involved in Nato planning in relation to Kosovo, but no decision has been taken to proceed with any operation.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British military forces the Nato Secretary General has authority to order into action following the response of both parties to the Contact Group's proposals on Kosovo. [69188]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The North Atlantic Council on 30 January agreed that the Nato Secretary General may authorise air strikes against targets on FRY territory. He will take his decision in the light of both parties' compliance with international commitments and requirements, including in particular assessment by the Contact Group of the response to its demands.

  The RAF assets dedicated to these air operations consist of eight Harriers and two tankers in Italy. Furthermore, HMS Iron Duke, a Type 23 frigate, which is part of the Nato Standing Force Mediterranean, is now situated in the Adriatic.

  Taiwan (Exports)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the restrictions placed on the United Kingdom defence industry in respect of exports of equipment and technology to Taiwan. [69008]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Applications for export licences to supply defence-related equipment and technology to Taiwan are considered case-by-case. All decisions are made in the light of the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. In scrutinising applications for Taiwan, we give particular weight to the implications for regional security.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Applications (Fraud)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases involving fraud on mortgage applications have been prosecuted by the CPS in each of the last five years. [67832]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of the number of cases involving fraud on mortgage applications which have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last five years. The information is held on individual case files and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Nolle Prosequi
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions he has exercised the procedure of Nolle Prosequi since May 1997. [67834]

  The Attorney-General
  Statistics are not maintained of how many nolle prosequi are granted. However, a search of files held by my office has identified five occasions since May 1997 when a nolle prosequi has been granted.

  Al Shifa Factory (Khartoum)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his communications with the Attorney-General of the United States in relation to the legality of the US military strike against the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. [67835]

  The Attorney-General
  The legality of the US action against the A1 Shifa action factory in Khartoum is a matter for the United States. I had no communications with Attorney-General Reno on the matter.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review aims and objectives of the Crown Prosecution Service. [67833]

  The Solicitor-General
  The overall aim of the Crown Prosecution Service is to contribute to the reduction both of crime and the fear of crime and to increased public confidence in the criminal justice system by fair and independent review of cases and by firm, fair and effective prosecution to court. The aim is consistent with, and supports, the wider aims which this Government have established for the first time for the criminal justice system as a whole.

  The objectives of the CPS have been revised to take account of the Glidewell recommendation that they should focus more on the CPS core business of prosecution.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Attorney-General which ministers in his Department made use of(a) RAF and (b) chartered aircraft between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999; and if he will list the dates, destinations and costs of such flights. [69079]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those bodies in Wales to which the Welsh Assembly will be able to appoint members. [68349]

  Mr. Michael
  Responsibility for making appointments to the following bodies in Wales will transfer from the Secretary of State for Wales to the National Assembly for Wales when the Assembly assumes its functions:

  Welsh Executive NDPBs:

  Agricultural Wages Committees for Clwyd, Dyfed, Glamorgan, Gwent, Gwynedd, Powys.

  Arts Council of Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  National Library of Wales, Council

  National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Council

  Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Health Commons Service Authority (residuary appointments to 30 June 1999)

  Welsh Language Board

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Welsh Health Bodies:

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales (until 2000)

  Health Authorities:

  Bro Taf;

  Dyfed Powys;

  Gwent;

  Iechyd Morgannwg;

  North Wales.

  NHS Trusts:

  Bro Morgannwg;

  Carmarthenshire;

  Conwy &Denbighshire;

  Ceredigion;

  Gwent Healthcare;

  North Glamorgan;

  North East Wales;

  North West Wales;

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen;

  Pontypridd &Rhondda;

  Powys Health Care;

  Swansea;

  Velindre;

  Welsh Ambulance Services.

  Welsh Advisory NDPBs:

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Environment Agency Advisory Committee for Wales

  Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee for Wales

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  745

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Social Services Inspectorate Advisory Goup for Wales

  Welsh Committee for the Professional Development of Pharmacy

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Welsh Tribunals:

  Rent Assessment Panels for Wales

  Welsh Others:

  Community Health Councils. The responsibilities and scope of CHCs are currently under review, but the present councils cover the following areas:

  Brecknock/Radnor;

  Bridgend;

  Caerphilly;

  Cardiff;

  Carmarthen/Dinefwr;

  Ceredigion;

  Conwy;

  Dyffryn Clwyd;

  Gogledd Gwynedd;

  Llanelli/Dinefwr;

  Meirionnydd;

  Merthyr & Cynon Valley;

  Montgomery;

  Neath & Port Talbot;

  North East Wales;

  North Gwent;

  Pembrokeshire;

  South Gwent;

  Swansea;

  Taff Ely & Rhondda;

  Vale of Glamorgan;

  Ynys Mon;

  Council of St. David's University of Wales, Lampeter

  Court and Council of University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  Court of University of Wales, Bangor

  Court of University of Wales, Swansea

  Food Strategy Advisory Group

  NHS Complaints Procedure: Independent Review Panels

  National Library of Wales, Court

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Court

  National Park Authorities:

  Brecon Beacons;

  Pembrokeshire Coast;

  Snowdonia.

  Saundersfoot Harbour Commission

  Sea Fisheries Committee—South Wales

  Wales Multi Research Ethics Committee

  Wales New Deal Advisory Task-force.

  746
  It may be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman to note that the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies 1998' explains the categories of public bodies as follows:
  Executive NDPBs: These bodies carry out a wide variety of administrative, regulatory and commercial functions. They generally operate under statutory provisions, employ their own staff and have responsibility for their own budgets.
  Advisory NDPBs:These are generally set up administratively by Ministers to advise them and their departments on matters within their sphere of interest. Some Royal Commissions are classified as Advisory NDPBs. Generally, advisory NDPBs are supported by staff from the sponsor department, and do not incur expenditure on their own account.
  Tribunal NDPBs: This category covers bodies with jurisdiction in a specialised field of law. In general, tribunals are serviced by staff from the sponsor department.
  Other bodies: These tend to be bodies which operate at a local level and include local authority planning bodies; CHCs and University Courts and Councils.

  Health and Education Spending Plans
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his public spending plans for health and education in the next three years. [68359]

  Mr. Michael
  The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) provided an extra £1.030 billion for the NHS in Wales—£175 million next financial year, £345 million in 2000–01 and £510 million in 2001–02. I am now considering in detail my spending priorities in view of the range of pressures and will make a further announcement in due course.

  For education I am making available an additional £117 million next financial year, £262 million in 2000–01 and £399 million in 2001–02. I will be announcing further details very soon.

  In future these decisions will be a responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the role of primary health care provision in North Wales. [68362]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The North Wales Health Authority is responsible for assessing, monitoring and arranging for the provision of health services in its area in order to meet clinical needs. This responsibility extends over both the primary and secondary sectors.

  The Welsh Office maintains oversight of health authorities in Wales; in the exercise of these functions officials meet representatives of each authority on a regular basis to review and report on progress.

  The Government's White Paper "Putting Patients First" set out our proposals for restoring and modernising the NHS. The aim is to ensure that services are developed in partnership and driven by a concern for quality, effectiveness and efficiency. Primary health care provision has a key role to play in that process and Local Health Groups will be established on 1 April. These groups will harness the skills and experience of primary care professionals and will work with partners such as local

  747
  authorities and the voluntary sector, to ensure that the services provided are responsive to the needs and circumstances of local people.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Health Care Provision
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to improve the provision of health care for children. [68364]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Our aim to improve the health and well-being of children in Wales is set out in the Green Paper "Better Health, Better Wales" (Cm 3922). Work is in hand to develop a children's strategy which will set clear objectives and principles to govern the development and delivery of children's services in Wales. A set of targets for children's health has been developed to measure improvements in children's health over the next five years.

  "The Health of Children in Wales" report sets out the statutory and policy requirements for high quality services for children and has been issued to all health authorities, health trusts and local authority social services departments in Wales. Progress in implementation of the report is being monitored.

  We have announced additional funding to establish a paediatric intensive care unit at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff (UHW). This unit will ensure that seriously ill children receive high quality specialised intensive care.

  We have set aside £25 million to establish a "Sure Start" programme in Wales over the next three years. The programme will aim to improve the health, welfare and social development of very young children particularly in areas of greatest disadvantage.

  Local authorities in Wales will have an extra £5 million of earmarked resources in 1999–2000 to begin making improvements to the quality and outcomes of services they provide for children. They will have to take into account the Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review (Cm 4105), which includes range of proposals to improve the health of looked after children by local authorities and other public agencies. The response to the Review also sets out the new arrangements for monitoring and safeguarding the welfare of children in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices.

  We have published an action programme for improved planning of special education needs (SEN) provision for children with disabilities and will be funding pilot projects in Wales in 1999–2000.

  The recent White Paper "Smoking Kills" (Cm 4177) announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to discourage children from taking up smoking and to adopt healthier life styles.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Theatres and Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the funding of regional(a) theatres and (b) orchestras. [68360]
  748
  Mr. Michael
  Welsh Office support for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council of Wales (ACW), which takes decisions on the detailed financial allocation to individual arts organisations. The ACW is in the process of consulting the public on its future strategy. I have helped that process by providing the ACW with the first real terms increase in its budget for a number of years. I have also announced a new programme on the next three years to develop and support orchestral and ensemble music involving children and young people.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [68396]

  Mr. Michael
  No responsibilities will be discontinued. The great majority of functions administered by my Department, and some responsibilities which currently fall to other departments, will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales later this year. These will be as set out in the Transfer of Functions Order which I published for consultation last November, and which I hope to lay before Parliament shortly. In addition, responsibility for section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, as it applies to Wales, will be transferred to my Department by the Home Office from April 1999.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [68412]

  Mr. Michael
  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.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report of the commissioners appointed to prepare draft standing orders for the National Assembly for Wales. [69805]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioners' chair, Mr. Gareth Wardell, wrote to me on 22 January, enclosing a comprehensive set of draft standing orders. I am very grateful to the Commissioners for the work they have undertaken on this extremely important task.

  I am arranging for copies of the Commissioners' report to be placed in the libraries of the House. I am also writing to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), inviting their parties' views on the Commissioners' work. I expect to make the standing orders in their final form in March.
  749
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what educational publicity campaign he plans to undertake, at what estimated cost, to inform electors of the new proportional voting system to be used in the election for the Welsh Assembly. [69187]

  Mr. Michael
  Information about the voting system will be given as part of the overall information campaign to increase public awareness of the Assembly and its powers together with the greater accountability for decisions in Wales once the Assembly is in place. I have now allocated some £2 million for the National Assembly Information Campaign.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on waiting lists in Wales. [69542]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I am pleased to announce that, as a result of the £20 million invested in the NHS by the Government and the hard work of the NHS staff, the inpatient waiting list fell over the three months to November 1998 to stand at 71,264—the lowest figure since February 1998. The numbers waiting over 12 months and 18 months fell by 329 and 323 respectively in November.

  Outpatient lists have increased by 11 in November while the number waiting over 6 months for an appointment rose by 232, an increase of 1.3 per cent.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Secretary of State (Responsibilities)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his responsibilities following the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. [68552]

  Mr. Michael
  Immediately after the election of the National Assembly for Wales I will retain all my current functions. A few weeks later I will transfer most of these functions to the Assembly in accordance with the Transfer of Functions Order. The Assembly will then become the centre of democracy within Wales. After that, the Secretary of State for Wales will continue as a member of the UK Cabinet and will have responsibility for primary legislation where it is proposed that powers be given to the Assembly, for Parliamentary procedures relating to those subordinate legislative instruments made by the Assembly which are still subject to such procedures, for securing and giving the Assembly its annual budget, for consulting the Assembly on the Government's legislative programme, for Welsh matters connected with the Palace and for minority languages.

  Some of the powers under the Government of Wales Act 1998 which the Secretary of State will exercise as part of the transfer of functions are not time limited so that he or she may apply the Act to changed circumstances; for example, he or she may add to the powers of the Auditor General for Wales if a new function is transferred to the Assembly which involves the preparation of accounts and make provisions about the accounts of any new public body that may be created with functions that relate only to Wales.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the level of funding for the Arts Council of Wales for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [68812]

  Mr. Michael
  I have received no representations in response to my announcement that the Arts Council's grant in aid for 1999–2000 will increase by 3.1 per cent. to £14.8 million. This is the first increase given to the Arts Council since 1995–96.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [68420]

  Mr. Straw
  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.

  My Department's spending allocation following the Comprehensive Spending Review does, however, take account of the Bill announced in the Queen's Speech on 24 November 1998 to modernise the law on immigration and asylum, including reform of the appeals system and new support arrangements for asylum seekers.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [68404]

  Mr. Straw
  From April 1999, my Department is transferring to the Department for Education and Employment and to the Welsh Office responsibility for funding grants under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for educational projects to help members of ethnic minorities to overcome disadvantage due to differences of language or culture. This represents 97 per cent. of the total value of grants paid under section 11. My Department is currently considering what arrangements might best be made for funding such work in areas other than education.

  My Department took on responsibility for freedom of information from the Cabinet Office on 31 July 1998.

  From April 1999, my Department will manage the new asylum seekers' budget which will meet the costs of support for adults and families seeking asylum. These costs are currently met from budgets managed by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.

  Burglars (Sentencing)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has evaluated into the expected financial costs and savings which will occur due to implementation of the proposed mandatory sentence for repeat burglars; if he will indicate the assumptions underlying such research; and if he will make a statement. [68948]

  Mr. Boateng
  We estimate that the implementation of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will add between 4,000 and 4,400 to the prison population over 10 years. These estimates are based on a sample of offenders convicted in four weeks in 1997 and include an allowance of 1,000 prison places for the indirect effects on convictions for similar offences, such as a second conviction for burglary. The range of figures reflects different assumptions about the deterrent effect of implementation: the higher figure assumes no reduction in the requirement for prison places as a result of deterrence.

  The latest long-term projections for the prison population are lower than had previously been the case. The Prison Service can now expect to cope with the extra prison places within existing provision at least for the next three years.

  Police Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police stations in each police force are accessible to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [68957]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the manner requested. The Audit Commission published details, in January 1999, of the number of police authority buildings open to the public and those which have access to and are usable by the disabled. These are set out in the table.

  Police authority

  Buildings open to public

  Accessible/ usable by disabled

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  46

  7

  15

  Bedfordshire

  12

  1

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  1

  3

  Cheshire

  40

  3

  8

  City of London1

  4

  3

  75

  Cumbria

  24

  5

  21

  Derbyshire

  29

  1

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  51

  19

  37

  Dorset

  35

  23

  66

  Durham

  13

  0

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  55

  1

  2

  Essex

  105

  7

  7

  Gloucestershire

  52

  3

  6

  Greater Manchester

  74

  6

  8

  Gwent

  58

  6

  10

  Hampshire

  54

  28

  52

  Hertfordshire

  23

  4

  17

  Humberside

  28

  14

  50

  Kent

  36

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  113

  17

  15

  Leicestershire

  27

  7

  26

  Lincolnshire

  24

  8

  33

  Merseyside

  47

  19

  40

  Norfolk

  46

  16

  35

  Northamptonshire

  12

  10

  83

  Northumbria

  51

  8

  16

  North Wales

  61

  46

  75

  North Yorkshire

  33

  0

  0

  752

  Police authority

  Buildings open to public

  Accessible/ usable by disabled

  Percentage

  Nottinghamshire

  69

  4

  6

  South Wales

  55

  13

  24

  South Yorkshire

  91

  12

  13

  Staffordshire

  49

  3

  6

  Suffolk

  28

  8

  29

  Surrey

  30

  0

  0

  Sussex

  32

  25

  78

  Thames Valley

  43

  7

  16

  Warwickshire

  20

  8

  40

  West Mercia

  54

  6

  11

  West Midlands

  68

  27

  40

  West Yorkshire

  50

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  25

  2

  8

  Metropolitan police

  191

  81

  42

  Totals

  1,987

  459

  23

  1Home Office figures

  Source:

  Figures published by the Audit Commission: January 1999

  HMP Coldingley
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of the internal audit into the letting of the workshop contract at HMP Coldingley to Wackenhut UK. [68945]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report by Prison Service Internal Audit on this matter is an internal management document, concerning actions which are the subject of a disciplinary inquiry as well as issues which are subject to discussion with the contractor. It is not intended to publish it.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums are owed by Wackenhut UK to the prison service in lieu of the workshop contract at HMP Coldingley; what steps are being taken by his Department in relation to this contract; and if he will make a statement. [68944]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The contract for the management of the industries at Coldingley Prison ended on 31 January 1999 following the receipt of notice of termination from the contractor, Wackenhut (UK) Limited.

  At 29 January, invoices totalling £170,531.18 payable under the terms of the contract had been presented to Wackenhut, but not yet paid; however, none were beyond the 30-day payment period. Additionally, Wackenhut are liable to make a final payment of £26,250 in February to complete repayment of a loan.

  The Prison Service is in the process of establishing other sums due, in relation to operation of the contract during January, handover of assets at the end of the contract and other matters. Further invoices will be issued in due course.

  The Prison Service has also started a disciplinary inquiry relating to concerns raised by an internal audit report on the operation of the contract.

  Public Safety Radiocommunications Project
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces implemented all necessary measures under the new Public Safety
  753
  Radiocommunications project; what is the expected date of implementation in each police force; what is the total capital cost to each police force of implementing the system; what is the expected annual running cost of the system for each police force; and if he will make a statement. [68951]

  Mr. Boateng
  All forces in England and Wales have been actively involved in Public Safety Radiocommunications project through establishment of dedicated teams, participation in regional user groups, direct consultations with the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which is managing the project, and a programme of force visits by the prospective service provider, BT.

  PITO have provided the provisional implementation dates for each force which are shown in the table.

  Budgeting for the take up of the service will be based on the agreed roll-out programme and is the responsibility of each Police Authority. Definitive costs are not available at this stage and are the subject of on-going negotiation.

  Provisional implementation dates

  Force

  Force wishes

  Quadrant proposal

  Avon and Somerset

  2000

  2001 (Q1)

  Cambridgeshire

  2000–01

  2002 (Q1)

  Cleveland

  2000

  2000 (Q4)

  Devon and Cornwall

  2000

  2000 (Q4)

  Durham

  2001

  2001 (Q1)

  Dyfed Powys

  1999

  2001 (Q1)

  Northumbria

  2000

  2001 (Q1)

  Nottinghamshire

  2002

  2002 (Q1)

  Wiltshire

  2000

  2001 (Q1)

  Metropolitan Police Service

  2003

  2002–3

  Lancashire

  Pilot

  1999

  Derbyshire

  2000–01

  2000

  Gloucestershire

  2000

  2000

  Greater Manchester Police

  2000

  2000

  Leicestershire

  2000

  2000

  Merseyside

  2000

  2000

  North Yorkshire

  1999

  2000

  Suffolk

  2000–01

  2000

  West Mercia

  1999

  2000

  Dorset

  2000

  2001

  Gwent

  2000

  2001

  Hampshire

  2000

  2001

  Hertfordshire

  2001

  2001

  South Wales

  2001

  2001

  Thames Valley

  2001

  2001

  Bedfordshire

  2001

  2002

  Cheshire

  2002–03

  2002

  Cumbria

  2001

  2002

  Humberside

  2002

  2002

  North Wales

  2002

  2002

  South Yorkshire

  2003

  2002

  Sussex

  2001

  2002

  West Midlands

  2003

  2002

  West Yorkshire

  2003

  2002

  City of London

  2003

  2003

  Essex

  2003

  2003

  Kent

  2003

  2003

  Lincolnshire

  2003

  2003

  Norfolk

  2001

  2003

  Northamptonshire

  2003

  2003

  Staffordshire

  2003

  2003

  Surrey

  2003

  2003

  Warwickshire

  2003

  2003

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list Her Majesty's National Inspectorate of Constabulary and Audit Commission proposals for improving police efficiency which are being implemented by his Department; arid if he will make a statement. [68956]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 4 November 1998, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to all police authorities and forces, with guidance on making efficiency plans to deliver the 2 per cent. reinvestment from efficiency gains which my right hon. Friend required for 1999–2000.

  This guidance drew heavily on areas for improved efficiency, suggested by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in its 1998 thematic report on value for money and efficiency, "What Price Policing?". The Audit Commission also report on police performance, as required under the Local Government Act 1992. They compare force date in different police authority areas, and work closely with the Inspectorate to advise and support the Secretary of State. Both HMIC and the Audit Commission have identified that better use of assets and procurement practice, reviewing specialist units and administrative arrangements, reducing sickness and improved management of medical retirements can contribute to improved management of medical retirements can contribute to improved police performance. Copies of all the relevant reports are in the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued to police forces in respect of obtaining the 2 per cent. efficiency gains demanded by his Department in each of the next three years; what is his policy towards police forces reducing police officer numbers to achieve these gains; and if he will make a statement. [68949]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to all police forces and authorities on 4 November 1998 with guidance to meet the 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency target set by Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. A copy of the letter was placed in the Library. The guidance, which was prepared in consultation with Her Majesty's Treasury, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the Audit Commission, sets out the information required in the efficiency plan and a pro forma for completion. It also lists areas identified by HMIC and the Audit Commission where there may well be scope of significant efficiency improvements, and which forces are encouraged to consider in preparing their plans.

  Police forces can keep the resources released by achieving efficiency gains. The Government expect them to reinvest these resources to help improve delivery of frontline national and local policing priorities. The guidance makes clear that we will not consider cuts in officer numbers as an efficiency gain, except where forces can demonstrate that, in doing so, they have maintained or improved the existing level of service.

  Criminal Record Checks
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the full cost to the Criminal Records Bureau of each criminal conviction certificate issued on an individual; what is the standard fee to be paid by individuals requesting a check; how many certificates he estimates will be requested per year(a) from people wishing to work in the voluntary sector, (b) from unemployed people, (c) from disabled people, (d) from all other individuals and (e) in total; and if he will make a statement. [68953]

  Mr. Boateng
  Once established, the Criminal Records Bureau will be self-financing through charging for each certificate to be issued as provided for under the Police Act 1997. The fee set for each certificate type will reflect the full cost to the Bureau of providing the service. We estimate that certificates will cost between five and around ten pounds depending on the level of certificate sought.

  It is impossible to predict accurately likely demand for certificates once the Bureau is in full operation. We estimate however that there will be annual demand for around 5 to 6 million Criminal Conviction Certificates (CCCs), 2 to 3 million Criminal Record Certificates (CRCs) and 2 to 3 million Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates (ECRCs). Demand for certificates from any particular sector is ever more difficult to predict, but up to half the CRCs and ECRCs issued could go to those wishing to work, in a paid or unpaid capacity, in the voluntary sector. Based on figures prepared in 1996, we estimate there could be around 1 million applications a year for CCCs from the unemployed. No estimate has been made of the number of applications from disabled people.

  Prisons (Charter Marks)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales have been awarded a Charter Mark; if he will list them by date awarded; and if he will make a statement. [68954]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Ten Prison Service establishments in England and Wales currently hold the Charter Mark for part or all of the establishment. They are:

  1996

  Morton Hall prison

  Holme House prison—Education Department

  Exeter prison—Physical Education (PE) Department

  1997

  Erlestoke prison—Library

  Kirkham prison

  Wayland prison—PE Department

  1998

  Holme House prison—PE Department

  Haverigg prison—PE Department and Library

  Northallerton Young Offender Institution—Education

  Department

  Doncaster prison—Premier Prison Services Ltd.

  Garth prison.

  Sergeant Gurpal Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the(a) cause and (b) length of suspension of Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. [68739]

  Kate Hoey
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He tells me that Police Sergeant Virdi was arrested on 15 April 1998 and has been suspended from duty. As the case remains under investigation, I cannot comment further.

  Racist Attack (Hanwell)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report about events following a racist attack in Hanwell in March 1998; and if he will make a statement. [68738]

  Kate Hoey
  The investigation of a particular crime is an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He tells me that five racist incidents of which two were attacks were recorded in Hanwell in March 1998. If the hon. Member would like to let me have identifying details of the attack he has in mind, I will ask the Commissioner for the relevant information, and will write to the hon. Member accordingly.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has, under interim funding arrangements for asylum seekers, to assist local authorities in respect of families who declared their intention to seek asylum at the port of entry and are eligible for benefits. [68579]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At present, asylum seekers with families who declare their intention to seek asylum at the port of entry may, if they qualify, be eligible for income support, housing benefit and assistance under the homelessness legislation. Local authority costs for such services are covered by the local government finance settlement in the normal way.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers arrived in this country without any documentation during 1998; what countries they claimed to come from; and if he will make a statement. [69302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number of asylum seekers who arrived in this country without any documentation could only be obtained by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, only available at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applicants for political asylum arrived as passengers at each(a) port and (b) airport in England and Wales, during the last quarter of (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998; and if he will make a statement; [69305]
  757
  (2) how many applicants for political asylum arrived as passengers at each (a) port and (b) airport in England and Wales, during (a) 1997 and (b) 1998; and if he will make a statement. [69304]

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

  Applications 1 received for asylum at pans in the England and Wales, excluding dependants, by location where made, 1997 and 1998

  Number of principal applicants

  Port

  19972

  October to December 1997

  1998

  October to December 1998

  Ashford

  25

  5

  35

  10

  Birmingham

  50

  15

  50

  10

  Bristol

  10

  5

  5

  *

  Cardiff

  10

  5

  10

  5

  Cheriton

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  1,355

  565

  4,205

  1,510

  East Midlands

  5

  5

  10

  *

  Felixstowe

  65

  15

  80

  25

  Folkstone

  5

  5

  30

  *

  Gatwick North

  1,935

  385

  1,930

  630

  Gatwick South

  1,065

  285

  1,310

  385

  Harwich

  100

  55

  600

  170

  Heathrow Terminal 1

  1,700

  530

  2,495

  915

  Heathrow Terminal 2

  2,435

  655

  3,300

  920

  Heathrow Terminal 3

  2,885

  860

  3,050

  745

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  1,605

  315

  1,775

  520

  Hull

  10

  5

  40

  15

  Humberside

  5

  —

  *

  —

  Immigham

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds Bradford

  20

  5

  15

  5

  Liverpool

  10

  5

  10

  *

  London City

  215

  135

  395

  130

  Luton

  30

  15

  60

  10

  Manchester Terminal 1

  10

  *

  25

  10

  Manchester Terminal 2

  200

  50

  375

  110

  Newhaven

  5

  *

  50

  15

  Norwich

  *

  —

  10

  10

  Plymouth

  10

  5

  5

  —

  Poole

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  15

  5

  70

  30

  Preston

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Prestwick

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Ramsgate

  55

  10

  5

  —

  Sheffield City

  10

  5

  15

  5

  Southampton

  5

  *

  *

  *

  Stanstead

  350

  120

  300

  85

  Swansea

  5

  5

  *

  —

  Teesport

  20

  —

  20

  —

  Tilbury

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Tyne

  5

  *

  35

  10

  Waterloo

  2,230

  465

  2,820

  705

  Total England and Wales

  16,485

  4,540

  23,145

  6,995

  Other ports

  100

  35

  200

  30

  Total port applications

  16,590

  4,575

  23,345

  7,020

  1Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2

  2Revised

  Source:

  Immigration Research and Statistics Service, RDS

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers made applications in the last quarter of(a) 1997 and (b) 1998; and if he will make a statement. [69303]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of asylum applications made in the last quarter of 1997 was 8,455. In the last quarter of 1998 the figure was 14,400. After the then record year for asylum claims in 1991, the previous Administration introduced legislation to control abuse of
  758
  There was a temporary drop in asylum claims after the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 but the figures have since increased. We inherited the current asylum legislation and will seek to amend it in a new Bill shortly.

  the asylum system. It temporarily reduced the numbers applying after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, but those figures started to rise to similar levels after a time.

  After 1996, new legislation produced another temporary reduction in claims, but since then the figures have risen again. The asylum legislation currently in place is that of previous Administrations. The present Administration will introduce a Bill to amend it shortly.
  759
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of dependants accompanying those who made applications for political asylum in each of the last two years. [69301]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is estimated that in 1997, 8,980 dependants accompanied applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom. The estimate for 1998 is 11,970. This information relates to dependants applying with the principal applicant or arriving subsequently, before the principal application was decided. It excludes dependants who arrive after the principal decision.

  Special Advisers
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the functions of his special advisers, together with their terms of contract, indicating(a) pay, (b) pension provision and (c) other benefits. [69337]

  Mr. Straw
  Justin Russell advises me on policy matters and Ed Owen is my adviser on media and political matters. They are employed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers, a copy of which had been placed in the Library.

  For information on salaries, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 354–55.

  In line with the practice of successive Administrations, information on the salaries and the paybill costs for individual Special Advisers is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Prison Radio Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison radio stations are operated by inmates in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [68830]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Feltham young offender institution has the only radio station operated by inmates in establishments in England and Wales.

  The radio station is funded by a charity called Friends of Feltham. The inmates involved are paid by the establishment in the same way as all inmates involved in purposeful activity.

  Prisoners (Incarceration)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of hours per day during 1998 that prisoners in prisons were locked in their cells. [68857]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During the calendar year 1998, prisoners were locked in their cells for an average of 15.4 hours on weekdays and for an average of 16.3 hours at weekends.

  Prisons (Pre-release Programme)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales operate a pre-release programme; and if he will make a statement. [68832]
  760
  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no central records of the number of prisoners operating pre-release programmes. Preparing prisoners for release is extremely important and the Prison Service provides assistance in a variety of ways. These include the delivery, by specially trained prison and probation staff and specialists from a range of voluntary organisations, of a range of advice and information on, for example, accommodation, employment, parenting skills and substance abuses.

  Prisoner Complaints
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average period of time taken by his Department to respond to complaints made to them by an inmate serving a prison sentence in England and Wales was in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [68831]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. However, the prisoner requests complaints procedure provides that prisoners should receive a reply within six weeks, and if that is not possible, they should receive an interim reply explaining the delay. There have been some delays in dealing with requests and complaints in Prison Service headquarters, and improved procedures are currently being put in place to keep prisoners informed of progress.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place those in Liverpool City Library those documents held by his Department relating to the Hillsborough disaster. [68854]

  Mr. Boateng
  As much of the evidence as possible considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of the Hillsborough disaster has already been placed in the Library and it is open to Members to arrange for their constituents to view it there. We have no plans to place copies of the material in Liverpool City Library and I am sorry that my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 3, gave that impression. I subsequently wrote to my right hon. Friend on 7 December setting out the position and placed a copy of that letter in the Library.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from(a) the South Yorkshire Police Authority and (b) South Yorkshire Police, on 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; and on what dates he received those reports. [688441

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received no reports on the costs to the South Yorkshire Police Authority other than the information contained in my reply I gave on 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 428. This information was obtained from the South Yorkshire Police on 28 January and confirmed by the Police Authority on 1 February.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those cases of criminal prosecution relating to the activities of mercenaries and private military companies which(a) have been brought and (b) have been brought successfully since 1987. [68694]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of convictions expressed as a proportion of the total number of recorded crimes in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [68608]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is given in the table:

  Offenders convicted for indictable offences1 as a proportion of the total number of notifiable offences recorded by the police2, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Percentages

  1993

  5.8

  1994

  6.2

  1995

  6.2

  1996

  6.2

  1997

  7.2

  1 Indictable offences including those triable-either-way.

  2 Excluding other criminal damage of value £20 and under. Includes estimates for criminal damage over £20 for Merseyside and Metropolitan Police.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the treatment of circus animals; and what plans he has to review the regulations governing their use. [69015]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Representations have been received from the all party parliamentary group for animal welfare, Members of Parliament, animal defenders and members of the public.

  The legislation—the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925—make it a criminal offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive wild animal. Trainers and exhibitors of circus animals are required to be registered with the local authority. Officers of local authorities have the power of entry to premises in which performing animals are being kept for training or exhibition and powers to inspect those animals.

  The Home Office is planning to issue guidance to local authorities about these powers. The Department will also be seeking information about the welfare of circus animals which are kept in winter quarters. Once this information has been obtained, we will consider the matter further. In the meantime, we expect local authorities to be robust in their enforcement of existing legislation governing the use of animals in circuses.

  Drug Suppliers
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome has been of 762
  the consultation exercise that has been undertaken on the proposal to introduce a Drug Supply Offender Protection Order; and if he will make a statement. [69802]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An undertaking was given during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consult on the proposal to introduce a Drug Supply Offender Protection Order. A consultation paper was issued on 23 June, copies of which were placed in the Library together with a list of the organisations to whom it was sent.

  The proposal would enable magistrates, on application, to impose an Order requiring anyone convicted or cautioned of a drug supply offence in this country or overseas to refrain from any act, if that was considered necessary to protect the public from the supply of drugs.

  The consultation exercise has revealed little support for such an Order. The overwhelming view expressed is that the present legislation is adequate and that the Order would have little impact on the present levels of misuse.

  This response to the exercise has confirmed our view that there would be no advantage in introducing such an Order at present.

  Wild-caught Primates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions permission was given for the use of wild-caught primates for research purposes during 1998: and what was(a) the species of primate used, (b) the source country, (c) the number of primates used and (d) the research for which permission was given. [69282]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During 1998, one project licence authorising the use of wild-caught non-human primates was granted. Under this licence, four wild-caught baboons, obtained from Kenya, were used in heart xenotransplantation research during 1998. Two further wild-caught rhesus macaques were used in neuroscience research under the authority of a licence granted before 1998. These were obtained before 1996. It was not possible to check their country of origin in the time available.

  Primates (Xenotransplantation Research)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions inspectors of scientific procedures involving animals have asked for primates used in xenotransplantation research to be destroyed to prevent unacceptable levels of pain or distress in each of the last three years. [69290]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Transgenic Pigs (Medical Research)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many transgenic pigs have been released under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for export from the United Kingdom for use in medical research and experimentation in each month since May 1997. [69291]
  763
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Month

  Number of Pigs

  Destination

  June 1997

  15

  USA

  August 1997

  17

  Japan

  November 1997

  4

  Netherlands

  April 1998

  112

  Canada

  April 1998

  10

  Spain

  April 1998

  121

  Spain

  May 1998

  2

  Netherlands

  June 1998

  121

  Italy

  June 1998

  5

  Spain

  September 1998

  18

  Canada

  1These animals were exported for use in breeding programmes rather than for use in scientific procedures

  Imported Primates (Journey Times)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the (i) longest and (ii) average recorded journey time of primates imported to the United Kingdom for research purposes during 1998 from(a) China, (b) Mauritius, (c) Indonesia and (d) the Philippines. [69281]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In accordance with the measures introduced in 1996, the Home Office only requires that an estimated total journey time be provided prior to each acquisition and that, after each acquisitions, confirmation be provided that the importation was in accordance with what had been authorised.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Country/journey details

  Average journey time

  China

  Longest—58 hours

  52 hours

  Mauritius

  Longest—38 hours

  28 hours

  Indonesia

  No importations during 1998

  —

  Philippines

  Longest—48 hours

  1Estimated 30 hours

  1It has not been possible to give an average journey time for acquisitions from the Philippines as the necessary information is still being collated

  As a result of pressure on airlines from animal protection groups, it is now impossible to fly primates directly to the United Kingdom. Instead, they are usually flown into mainland Europe and then transported to the United Kingdom by road and ferry, increasing the journey times and the associated stress for the animals.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the prisoners released on 28 January, subject to home detention curfew, had(a) one previous conviction and (b) more than one previous conviction for offences to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies; [69191]
  764
  (2) how many of the prisoners released on 28 January, subject to home detention curfew were serving a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of violence and had (a) one previous conviction for violence and (b) more than one previous conviction for violence. [69192]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Five of the 38 prisoners placed on home detention curfew on 28 January were serving sentences for offences of violence. Offenders required to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will only be placed on home detention curfew in exceptional circumstances. No offender who was serving a sentence for an offence covered by Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was placed on home detention curfew on 28 January. The data on previous convictions are not immediately available and I will write to the hon. Member when this has been collated.

  Appeal Court
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the median time taken for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to reach a decision on reference to the Appeal Court. [67830]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that since April 1997, the median time taken, from receipt of the application, to reach a decision on cases (other than those which the Commission has determined do not meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995) was 212 working days.

  Prison Service (Dogs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs are currently employed by Her Majesty's Prison Service in England and Wales. [69094]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The total number of dogs in the Prison Service at the end of January 1999 were 752. These are broken down as:

  462: German shepherd dogs of which 18 are dual purpose dogs.

  178: Active drug dogs.

  34: Passive drug dogs.

  78: Arms and explosive search dogs.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds have been spent in each of the last three years on mandatory drug tests in prisons. [68996]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is a central budget covering expenditure on laboratory analysis, a courier service, collection kits and stationery. Expenditure from that budget in the last three years has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  1,076,381

  1997–98

  1,599,137

  April 1998 to January 1999

  1,100,000

  These figures do not include the cost of staff who collect the samples and provide administrative support. Responsibility for meeting these costs is devolved to

  765
  each prison governor. Information on this element of expenditure is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount of illegal drugs discovered in each of Her Majesty's prisons in each of the last three years. [68997]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table lists for each of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales for the last three years, the number of finds of illegal drugs discovered. No central record of the aggregate amount of the drug is kept.

  Drug finds in Prisons 1996–98

  Total drug finds per establishment per year

  Prison

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Acklington

  31

  37

  46

  Albany

  15

  4

  —

  Aldington

  10

  6

  5

  Altcourse

  —

  —

  65

  Ashwell

  32

  59

  52

  Askham Grange

  3

  2

  5

  Aylesbury

  36

  19

  24

  Belmarsh

  9

  6

  38

  Birmingham

  95

  120

  101

  Blakenhurst

  180

  193

  156

  Blundeston

  37

  55

  46

  Brinsford

  93

  65

  41

  Bristol

  47

  64

  79

  Brixton

  81

  41

  63

  Brockhill

  12

  17

  29

  Buckley Hall

  58

  48

  36

  Bullingdon

  47

  59

  74

  Bullwood Hall

  6

  5

  7

  Camp Hill

  25

  15

  7

  Canterbury

  47

  25

  11

  Cardiff

  227

  206

  136

  Castington

  15

  16

  13

  Channings Wood

  39

  36

  25

  Chelmsford

  92

  105

  73

  Colchester

  —

  6

  —

  Coldingley

  6

  9

  7

  Cookham Wood

  7

  6

  6

  Dartmoor

  45

  32

  25

  Deerbolt

  38

  29

  16

  Doncaster

  349

  293

  176

  Doncaster

  349

  293

  176

  Dorchester

  5

  1

  4

  Dover

  40

  26

  28

  Downview

  2

  1

  2

  Drake Hall

  23

  10

  2

  Durham

  252

  246

  133

  Eastwood Park

  7

  1

  1

  Elmley

  105

  39

  24

  Erlestoke

  21

  18

  20

  Everthorpe

  37

  39

  37

  Exeter

  57

  41

  51

  Featherstone

  29

  8

  9

  Feltham

  308

  231

  124

  Ford

  46

  110

  36

  Frankland

  57

  40

  49

  Full Sutton

  41

  13

  21

  Garth

  61

  46

  37

  Gartree

  37

  9

  14

  Glen Parva

  226

  183

  120

  Gloucester

  47

  55

  45

  Grendon

  24

  21

  19

  Guys Marsh

  42

  56

  42

  Haslar

  —

  1

  —

  Hatfield

  10

  4

  —

  Havering

  61

  47

  44

  Hewell Grange

  4

  2

  7

  Highdown

  98

  65

  3

  Highpoint

  36

  64

  63

  Hindley

  66

  41

  18

  766

  Drug finds in Prisons 1996–98

  Total drug finds per establishment per year

  Prison

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Hollesley Bay

  49

  53

  41

  Holloway

  97

  82

  56

  Holme House

  62

  91

  58

  Hull

  75

  41

  22

  Huntercombe

  6

  3

  1

  Kingston

  2

  —

  —

  Kirkham

  39

  46

  16

  Kirklevington

  4

  2

  —

  Lancaster

  21

  15

  14

  Lancaster Farms

  72

  47

  36

  Latchmere House

  —

  1

  —

  Leeds

  135

  96

  97

  Leicester

  171

  115

  63

  Lewes

  82

  75

  46

  Leyhill

  2

  —

  4

  Lincoln

  92

  86

  72

  Lindholme

  159

  119

  63

  Littlehey

  46

  23

  30

  Liverpool

  176

  145

  62

  Long Lartin

  10

  4

  15

  Lowdham Grange

  —

  —

  47

  Low Newton

  38

  11

  12

  Maidstone

  15

  15

  30

  Manchester

  84

  102

  100

  Moorland

  74

  88

  98

  Morton Hall

  3

  15

  11

  New Hall

  9

  8

  6

  North Sea Camp

  6

  15

  4

  Northallerton

  33

  38

  25

  Norwich

  63

  69

  83

  Nottingham

  14

  35

  67

  Onley

  51

  21

  28

  Parc

  —

  1

  64

  Parkhurst

  80

  48

  28

  Pentonville

  94

  124

  115

  Portland

  51

  25

  22

  Preston

  108

  104

  85

  Ranby

  34

  28

  26

  Reading

  41

  71

  18

  Risley

  122

  74

  100

  Rochester

  8

  4

  2

  Send

  2

  1

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  6

  9

  3

  Shrewsbury

  20

  29

  28

  Stafford

  88

  86

  50

  Standford Hill

  21

  26

  8

  Stocken

  30

  21

  19

  Stoke Heath

  37

  22

  4

  Styal

  26

  16

  18

  Sudbury

  1

  34

  15

  Swaleside

  22

  4

  23

  Swansea

  36

  47

  35

  Swinfen Hall

  6

  3

  19

  The Mount

  59

  44

  21

  The Verne

  41

  33

  37

  Thorn Cross

  57

  62

  40

  Usk

  4

  3

  2

  Wakefield

  16

  8

  5

  Wandsworth

  146

  55

  60

  Wayland

  66

  69

  89

  Wealstun

  19

  8

  11

  Weare

  —

  —

  9

  Wellingborough

  12

  11

  30

  Werrington

  3

  2

  3

  Wetherby

  10

  8

  10

  Whatton

  —

  1

  —

  Whitemoor

  35

  17

  21

  Winchester

  33

  12

  2

  Wolds

  124

  76

  55

  Woodhill

  104

  62

  35

  Wormwood Scrubs

  155

  111

  51

  Wymott

  4

  23

  4

  Total

  6,835

  5,840

  4,689

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Industry (Marketing)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to improve marketing in the food industry. [67810]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  We pursue a range of activities to help the agri-food industry improve competitive performance, including marketing. We also work with industry initiatives in this area.

  Battery Hens
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to improve the welfare of battery hens. [67811]

  Mr. Morley
  We are continuing to work with our EU partners to develop improved welfare standards for laying hens in battery cages and to set, for the first time, Community wide standards for non-cage systems. We have made it clear in these negotiations that our long term aim is to phase out cages altogether.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the food industry in relation to genetically modified foods. [67812]

  Mr. Rooker
  The issue of genetically modified foods has featured on the agenda of various on-going meetings which I have had with the food industry.

  Meat Hygiene Inspectors
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about contingency plans in the event of a strike by meat hygiene inspectors. [67813]

  Mr. Rooker
  Contingency Plans were drawn up to minimise the effect of industrial action by some Meat Hygiene Service staff. Food safety, public health and animal welfare were fully protected.

  The MHS strictly enforced meat hygiene, specified risk material and animal welfare Regulations in all licensed plants whether or not they were able to operate on the day of strike action. The Contingency Plans were successful in achieving their objectives for the GB meat industry as a whole.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for studies of the work of meat inspectors. [67820]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no proposals for studies of the work of meat inspectors with respect to the relationship between the inspectors and plant operators.

  The Meat Hygiene Service is an enforcement Agency carrying out a difficult but crucial job of protecting public health and animal welfare occasionally in a hostile environment. The MHS seeks to work in co-operation with plant management rather than confrontation. A balance must be struck between effective enforcement and unnecessary over-regulation and I believe that the MHS is getting it right.

  Non-European Union Imports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about food safety standards for imports from outside the EU. [67814]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Protecting the public by ensuring that food is produced to high standards of safety is a priority for the Government. Imports from outside the EU are required to have been produced to the same, or equivalent, standards as domestic produce.

  Food and Animal Welfare Standards
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the cost to British farmers of compliance with food and animal welfare standards. [67815]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of compliance with statutory food and animal welfare standards is considered as part of the full regulatory impact assessment we now provide on any proposed changes to legislation. It is, of course, also necessary to consider the cost and other implications of non-compliance in these important areas.

  British Beef
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department has taken to persuade local authorities in England not to place an arbitrary restriction on the purchase of British beef and beef products. [67816]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry is not well placed nor resourced to lobby local authorities, which are obliged to look for best value for money in their procurement decisions. However, we continue to support the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission in its efforts to re-instate beef on school menus.

  Small Farm Sector
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage innovation and diversification in the small farm sector. [67818]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding is available to the small farm sector to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including innovation and farm diversification, in the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English Objective 5b Structural Fund Programmes. No grant aid for farm diversification is currently available outside these areas but MAFF is consulting on options in the Agenda 2000 CAP reform rural development proposals. MAFF is working with the NFU to encourage collaboration among farmers. It is also organising seminars on farmers' markets and the speciality food sector.

  Hill Farmers
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current incomes of hill farmers in the United Kingdom. [67819]

  Mr. Morley
  The 1998 Autumn Review of Economic Conditions in the Hills and Uplands showed that, in the UK as a whole, net farm income on full-time cattle and sheep farms in the Less Favoured Areas was forecast to
  769
  fall by 67 per cent. in 1998/99. The statistical tables containing this, and other data, were laid before the House on 26 November 1998. This forecast did not include the payments to hill livestock farmers in the £120 million aid package announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 624–40.

  On 28 January 1999, my Department published provisional estimates of UK farm incomes and output in 1998. These estimates, which include the extra payments under the aid package, forecast a fall of 38 per cent. in net farm incomes on cattle and sheep farms in the Less Favoured Areas in 1998–99.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to press for reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [67821]

  Mr. Morley
  We are continuing to press for comprehensive reform of the Common Agricultural Policy at meetings of the EU Agriculture Council in Brussels, with a view to bringing productions closer to the market.

  We are seeking the gradual reduction and eventual phasing out of price and production-related agricultural support. We are also pushing for part of the savings from such a reduction in production support to be directed to measures which will protect and enhance the environment and help the rural economy adjust, particularly in more fragile rural areas.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding reform of environmental measures under the CAP. [67824]

  Mr. Morley
  Representations on CAP reform, including reform of environmental measures, were most recently sought as part of a consultation process launched on 5 January. Responses have yet to be received or fully assessed.

  Foodstuffs Importation Ban
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Department's powers to ban importation of foodstuffs whose production standards are illegal in this country. [67822]

  Mr. Rooker
  Member States have powers to take protective measures under various pieces of EU legislation where there is a risk to public health.

  Sustainable Rural Development
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to promote sustainable rural development. [67823]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 1083.

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to dispose of meat and bone meal; and if he will make a statement. [67825]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Intervention Board has awarded the first large scale contract for incineration with energy recovery of meat and bone-meal (MBM) derived from the OTMS and is considering proposals from other potential service providers. The majority of MBM from animals slaughtered for human consumption is being safely landfilled in appropriately licensed sites.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has to ensure that a pesticide tax does not disadvantage British growers relative to their European competitors; [68237]

  (2) what study he has made of the relative advantages of a pesticides tax as opposed to other measures adopted by other EU states to reduce pesticide usage. [68229]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 26 January 1999, Official Report, column 218.

  Date Based Export Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in implementing the Date Based Export Scheme. [67817]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are currently considering the responses to the consultation on the Date Based Export Scheme (DBES) and making the necessary arrangements for the scheme to operate. I expect to lay the legislation necessary to implement the DBES later this month. However, the EC Commission need to carry out an inspection, report and set a date on which exports may resume.

  Welsh and English Lamb
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek protection for(a) Welsh and (b) English lamb under European Union law relating to food labelling requirements. [68595]

  Mr. Rooker
  EC legislation on the protection of food names enables products from particular regions, with a specific quality or characteristic attributable to that region, to be protected against imitators. An application to protect "Welsh lamb" has been submitted to the European Commission for approval. Cases are being developed to protect lamb from a number of specific regions of England.

  As I have already announced to the House, we will shortly be implementing the recommendation of the

  771
  Review of the Organic Aid Scheme that rates of aid for farmers converting to organic farming should be substantially increased.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conversion payments have been made by region in each of the last five financial years to encourage farmers to switch to organic production; and if he will make a statement about the Organic Aid Scheme. [67711]

  Mr. Morley
  The Organic Aid Scheme was not in operation during the financial year 1993–94. Expenditure under the scheme in subsequent financial years, by region, is as follows:

  £

  Total amount paid

  Region

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  Carlisle

  —

  7,975

  11,594

  12,383

  6,719

  Northallerton

  —

  0

  7,919

  7,763

  7,225

  Crewe

  —

  4,011

  6,556

  15,892

  11,267

  Worcester

  —

  69,831

  110,217

  97,617

  87,396

  Nottingham

  —

  16,229

  20,063

  21,532

  32,963

  Cambridge

  —

  7,459

  17,975

  46,855

  43,100

  Reading

  —

  32,427

  71,253

  124,722

  123,256

  Bristol

  —

  62,822

  85,902

  139,903

  152,535

  Exeter

  —

  39,264

  42,840

  105,667

  99,088

  Total

  2—

  240,018

  374,319

  572,334

  563,549

  1 To end October 1998

  2 No significant expenditure

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [68400]

  Mr. Morley
  In answer to parts(a) and (d) of the question, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 27 October 1998, Official Report, columns 156–58. With the exception of work on food safety and standards, which will transfer to the proposed Food Standards Agency, MAFF is not proposing to transfer any responsibilities to another Department or to an executive agency.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Ewen Cameron
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since May 1997 he has met Mr. Ewen Cameron, and if he will make a statement on the matters discussed. [69341]

  The Prime Minister
  As under previous administrations, it is not the normal practice to provide details of private meetings with specific individuals or organisations.

HEALTH

  Head Lice
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 242, on head lice, what help is available to parents on low incomes for the purchase of head lice treatments. [68926]

  Ms Jowell
  All medication, which includes treatment for head lice, is available free of charge, on prescription to children aged 0–16 and to those aged 16–18 who are in full-time education.

  Prescribed medication is available free through the extensive charge exemption and remission arrangements which include those on low incomes. Details are in leaflet Health Circular 11, "Are you entitled to help with health costs", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Aricept
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which area health authorities in England and Wales fund the prescription of the drug Aricept to treat Alzheimer's Disease. [68919]

  Mr. Denham
  Donepezil Hydrochloride (Aricept) was prescribed on the National Health Service in all health authorities in England over the period October 1997 to September 1998. Questions relating to Wales are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Health Authority Wages
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 324–26, on average wages, if he will list the source data used. [68963]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives average wages for the 78 New Earnings Survey areas. In my answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 324–26, the figures for Brent and Harrow and Bedfordshire should have read £388.73 and £364.66 respectively.

  £

  Average

  Area

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  City of London

  639.58

  672.3

  708.64

  673.51

  Hackney

  551.04

  549.74

  635.93

  578.90

  Tower Hamlets

  532.58

  521.50

  567.02

  540.37

  City of Westminster

  514.71

  517.16

  547.43

  526.44

  Islington

  476.06

  479.21

  522.40

  492.56

  Lambeth

  486.45

  469.92

  476.11

  477.49

  Camden

  467.33

  462.02

  488.32

  472.56

  Hammersmith

  428.56

  458.06

  516.66

  467.76

  Southwark

  456.69

  454.87

  475.64

  462.40

  Hillingdon

  432.43

  463.27

  490.12

  461.94

  Kensington & Chelsea

  395.58

  438.86

  457.93

  430.79

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  415.06

  406.98

  439.14

  420.39

  Berkshire

  399.12

  425.96

  432.52

  419.20

  Surrey

  387.62

  409.61

  431.72

  409.65

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  354.90

  435.52

  438.05

  409.49

  Ealing

  387.42

  411.76

  427.04

  408.74

  Hounslow

  387.22

  397.40

  435.16

  406.59

  Wandsworth

  373.06

  409.10

  430.22

  404.13

  Barking

  383.39

  385.98

  405.00

  391.46

  Harrow

  386.08

  387.86

  393.70

  389.21

  Sutton

  352.57

  389.76

  424.73

  389.02

  Brent

  372.19

  404.97

  387.59

  388.25

  773

  £

  Average

  Area

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  Newham

  355.64

  366.31

  434.75

  385.57

  Buckinghamshire

  363.59

  392.02

  398.18

  384.60

  Hertfordshire

  362.35

  374.95

  402.12

  379.81

  Croydon

  348.70

  367.38

  381.62

  365.90

  Merton

  346.42

  372.86

  378.12

  365.80

  Bexley

  360.35

  368.45

  365.86

  364.89

  Bedfordshire

  343.16

  374.41

  376.42

  364.66

  West Sussex

  346.16

  361.27

  378.80

  362.08

  Haringey

  334.61

  345.23

  395.62

  358.55

  Greenwich

  330.29

  367.73

  372.36

  356.79

  Enfield

  333.38

  354.86

  372.54

  353.59

  Wiltshire

  327.65

  347.69

  377.83

  351.05

  Cheshire

  339.45

  349.81

  362.34

  350.53

  Lewisham

  358.53

  363.76

  324.22

  348.83

  Hampshire

  332.05

  344.72

  366.21

  347.66

  Essex

  335.08

  346.89

  356.59

  346.19

  Oxfordshire

  328.23

  346.99

  362.88

  346.03

  Gloucestershire

  331.71

  345.06

  361.32

  346.03

  Avon

  334.69

  338.95

  363.97

  345.87

  Cambridgeshire

  331.05

  340.16

  365.38

  345.53

  Barnet

  322.99

  342.01

  362.29

  342.43

  Redbridge

  327.72

  328.49

  355.96

  337.39

  Bromley

  345.17

  327.90

  332.23

  335.10

  West Midlands

  314.36

  328.46

  343.22

  328.68

  Northamptonshire

  314.39

  326.76

  340.13

  327.09

  Kent

  315.56

  322.99

  341.24

  326.59

  Warwickshire

  308.94

  325.48

  344.86

  326.43

  Waltham Forest

  301.63

  351.57

  324.93

  326.05

  Havering

  333.15

  312.04

  331.71

  325.64

  Cleveland

  302.50

  327.41

  344.62

  324.84

  Greater Manchester

  308.95

  321.58

  340.50

  323.67

  Merseyside

  310.15

  315.63

  336.19

  320.66

  Dorset

  302.42

  323.85

  327.56

  317.94

  Derbyshire

  298.88

  322.53

  329.85

  317.08

  Leicestershire

  294.97

  315.54

  333.11

  314.54

  West Yorkshire

  299.45

  313.15

  326.25

  312.95

  Humberside

  303.21

  305.75

  319.51

  309.49

  Tyne &Wear

  293.24

  312.13

  313.25

  306.20

  Lancashire

  294.87

  302.64

  318.60

  305.37

  East Sussex

  283.18

  311.02

  320.79

  304.99

  Suffolk

  288.22

  310.03

  314.69

  304.31

  Nottinghamshire

  291.85

  297.09

  320.70

  303.21

  Somerset

  292.32

  300.47

  316.04

  302.94

  North Yorkshire

  279.78

  301.56

  314.78

  298.71

  Cumbria

  292.74

  293.70

  309.18

  298.54

  Staffordshire

  285.77

  298.16

  309.57

  297.84

  Norfolk

  280.63

  300.71

  310.70

  297.35

  Lincolnshire

  271.37

  304.48

  315.92

  297.26

  South Yorkshire

  284.70

  293.03

  310.22

  295.99

  Hereford & Worcester

  285.59

  296.57

  304.90

  295.69

  Durham

  279.75

  295.17

  309.70

  294.87

  Shropshire

  275.77

  291.88

  299.97

  289.21

  Northumberland

  274.56

  282.50

  290.66

  282.57

  Devon

  272.92

  279.66

  294.33

  282.30

  Isle of Wight

  267.55

  284.76

  292.83

  281.71

  Cornwall

  249.00

  259.30

  274.29

  260.86

  Afro-Caribbean Women (Health Needs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of mortality rates of Afro-Caribbean women; and what plans he has for health programmes to address these womens health needs. [68741]

  Ms Jowell
  Mortality rates are available not by ethnic origin but by country of birth. Compared to the national average for women aged 20–69 years, mortality from all causes in 1989–1992 in England and Wales was higher by more than 25 per cent. for those born in West Africa 774
  and lower by nearly 10 per cent. for those born in the Caribbean, but not significantly different for those born in East Africa.

  Last years Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" set out the two over-arching aims for our health strategy: to improve health and to tackle health inequality, both of which are relevant to black and minority ethnic health. In addition, the Green Paper indicated that the strategy will focus on some key national targets—all of which are themselves relevant to different ethnic communities, supported by a range of locally-set targets based on local needs. This is particularly important for ethnic health since needs are not spread uniformly across the country. Each area needs to consider and tailor its responses to local circumstances. It is here where the local Health Improvement Programmes will be crucial to both assess and target specific health needs, such as those of Afro-Caribbean women.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local health authorities provide placements for people with autism in communities in their area and (b) such placements there are, broken down by local health authority; and if he will make a statement. [68550]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available. It is for the local statutory authorities to determine the needs of people with autism in their area and provide appropriate placements.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of health authorities about the provisions for treatment of(a) children with (i) Kannens autism and (ii) autism spectrum disorder and (b) young persons and adults with autism spectrum disorder; and if he will make a statement. [68553]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have not had any discussions with representatives of health authorities. It is for the local statutory authorities to determine the needs of children with autism in their area and work together effectively to ensure that these needs are met.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what timetable he has set for the production of reports by the Working Group on CFS/ME and its sub-groups; [68563]

  (2) by whom in his Department the reports produced by the CFS/ME Working Group and sub-groups will be considered; and what plans he has to publish them; [68562]

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the terms of reference of(a) the CFS/ME Working Group and (b) its children's sub-group whose membership was announced on 4 November 1998. [68561]

  Ms Jowell
  The terms of reference for the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) working group are; to review management and practice in the field of CFS/ME with the aim of providing best practice guidance for professionals, patients and carers to improve the quality of care and treatment for people with
  775
  CFS/ME. The children's sub-group has the same terms of reference although its primary focus will be issues specifically relating to children.

  The work of the groups should be completed by the summer of 2000 and the final report published later that year. The report will be considered by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. The Working Group was established by the previous CMO, Sir Kenneth Calman and its work has been taken forward by his successor, Professor Donaldson. The final report will be made freely available.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from mobile phone communications companies on the health aspects of the use of mobile phones. [69017]

  Ms Jowell
  Three mobile phone communications companies have made representations to the Department to discuss areas of common interest. In addition, Departmental officials have had discussions with the industry about possible research initiatives.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued on the potential health effects of the use of mobile phones; and what plans he has to commission further research in this area. [69016]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government obtain advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on the risks to health from exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those emitted by mobile phones. The NRPB's advice is that mobile phones currently used in the United Kingdom comply with their exposure guidelines (Restrictions on human exposure to static and time varying electromagnetic fields and radiation. Documents of the NRPB, 4, No 5,7–63 (1993)). Copies are available in the Library. These guidelines are intended to prevent acute adverse responses to increased heat load and elevated body temperature. The basis of these guidelines is the same as those of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Both organisations agree that the alleged (or potential) non-thermal effects which have occasionally been reported should not form the basis of exposure restrictions.

  Research into potential effects of microwaves such as those emitted by mobile phones is being undertaken on a worldwide basis. The Department is contributing to these international initiatives and is also supporting its own research programme. Research is also carried out at the NRPB.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a waiting list for beta-interferon treatment has been drawn up by the West Sussex Health Authority. [69182]

  Mr. Denham
  No.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which ministers in his Department made use of(a) RAF
  776
  and (b) chartered aircraft between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999; and if he will list the dates, destinations and costs of such flights. [69076]

  Ms Jowell
  There have been no occasions where a Department of Health Minister has used a Royal Air Force or privately chartered aircraft between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from whom the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority has received applications for permission to conduct clinical trials of xenotransplantation; on what date each application was received; and for what types of procedure permission is being sought. [69292]

  Mr. Hutton
  To date, the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) has received one application which complies with the requirements set out in"Guidance on making proposals to conduct xenotransplantation on human subjects".

  In addition, one applicant has been advised to re-submit an application in accordance with the requirements described in the Guidance.

  Information submitted to the UKXIRA is supplied in confidence. An announcement will be made if an application is approved.

  GP Fundholding
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he is making to abolish GP fundholding. [69658]

  Mr. Denham
  Further to the oral answer I gave on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 711, the position is as follows. The current general practitioner fundholding schemes will be brought to an end on 31 March 1999 through secondary legislation. The Health Bill makes provision for the abolition of GP fundholding. A residual fundholding scheme, to be made by regulations under current legislation, will operate from 1 April until the first practicable date after the Health Bill receives Royal Assent.

SCOTLAND

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has provided to chairmen of local enterprise companies in Scotland on making public statements on political issues; and if he will make a statement. [67395]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: None. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise delegate extensively the exercise of their powers and functions to local enterprise companies. Their activities are governed by the terms of their contractual relationships with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. LEC Board members are also expected to comply with the Code of Best Practice for Local Enterprise Companies Corporate Governance, which

  777
  focuses on integrity, accountability and openness. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the income to be raised by fees paid by students resident in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for their attendance at the fourth year or subsequent years of first degree courses at Scottish universities or colleges in the current year and each of the next five years. [675001

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: Students subject to the requirement to make a contribution to fees will not be in the fourth year of a course at a Scottish university or college until academic year 2001–02. The income to be raised in respect of fourth year fees from English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students for academic years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is therefore zero. At current prices it has been estimated that contributions which will be paid by students domiciled in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be approximately £2 million in academic year 2001–02 and thereafter. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  McMillan Conversion Course
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in relation to the McMillan two year open learning conversion course for second-level registered nurses(a) the level of funding provided, (b) the planned increase in funding and (c) the estimated number who will qualify each year; and if he will issue guidance to trusts on the selection of students for this course and on leave for attending. [67678]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The McMillan two-year open learning course is one of several different courses in Scotland for the conversion of second level to first level nurses. The Scottish Office funds some places on such courses through its contracts with Universities and Colleges for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education. However, education institutions have flexibility to decide, in the light of local demand, how many places to allocate to conversion courses and how many to other courses covered by their contracts. It is also for them to determine the nature of their second to first level conversion courses. Many do so through open learning, and some use the course published by McMillan.

  The number of places taken up in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 will depend on the demand for second level conversion courses. During 1996–97, 274 second level nurses in Scotland completed conversion courses. In 1997–98, the number was 310. These figures include nurses funded by their employer or privately as well as those funded by The Scottish Office.

  The only criteria required for entry to a second-level conversion course is that the candidate is a second level registered nurse. The nature of open learning is that students do not require leave to attend the course. They do, however, require to undertake a period of clinical experience. Most of this can be done in the area in which the second level nurse normally works.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [68414]

  Mr. Timms
  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.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations were received on the Pensions Review; and how many recommended an increase in the(a) level and (b) scope of the basic state pension. [68704]

  Mr. Timms
  A total of 2,228 responses were received by the Pensions Review. The information on the content of the responses is not available in the form requested. 661 of the responses raised the issue of the uprating of the basic state pension; and 1,002 raised other issues relating to the basic state pension.

  Single Room Rent Provision
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years on (i) rent arrears and (ii) homelessness, on that age group. [68702]

  Angela Eagle
  Together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department has commissioned the London Research Centre to investigate Housing Benefit and the private rented sector. The study includes interviews with young people who have had their Housing Benefit restricted under the single room rent (SRR) rules, as well as with other tenants, landlords, Housing Benefit Officers and Rent Officers. The study has been conducted in six case study areas and will provide evidence on the effects of the SRR and on rent arrears, though not directly on homelessness, which is difficult to establish. The report is expected to be published in the Spring.

  The Department has received a number of reports from outside organisations which present findings of studies into the impact of the single room rent provision. These reports are localised and they vary in their scope and quality. All these reports, together with the findings of a study funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, are being considered by the Department.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals have been subject to the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [68699]
  779
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at 31 May 1997, 29,000 individuals aged under 25 years were subject to the single room rent provision, and of these 16,000 had their rent restricted. The May 1998 data will be published at the end of this month.

  Source:
  Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1997.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received on the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years; [68706]

  (2) what plans he has to review the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years; and if he will make a statement; [68700]

  (3) what plans he has to meet with welfare and voluntary sector organisations to discuss the single room rent provision for under 25 year olds. [68826]

  Angela Eagle
  Representations about the single room rent (SRR) provision for under 25 year olds have been received from hon. Members, members of the public and a variety of voluntary and charitable organisations. We are reviewing with the Local Authority Associations the Housing Benefit rules with a view to simplifying and improving the scheme. The SRR rules form part of that review. We have already met with a number of these organisations to invite their views.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years on the take-up of employment by that group; [68703]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of housing benefit fraud linked to the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years; [68701]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the number of persons who have changed accommodation as a result of the single room rent provision for those aged under 25 years. [68707]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available.

  Pension Payments (Computer Difficulties)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments to private pension schemes have been delayed due to computer difficulties; how many payments have been delayed(a) up to three, (b) three to six, (c) six to nine, (d) nine to 12 and (e) over 12 months, indicating the size of the compensation payments for each of these groups; and if payments will take account of changes in the equity market. [68823]

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

  The calculation of the National Insurance Rebates contains an assumption that they are paid in the October following the end of the tax year for which they are due. Normally around 90 per cent. of payments have been made by that date, and a further 95 per cent. by December.
  780
  This year by October, 14 per cent. had been paid, and by December, 46 per cent. Currently, 67 per cent. has been paid.

  We recognise the need to pay compensation for payments that have been delayed after October and arrangements are in place to pay 0.5 per cent. per month for each month of delay. The November payments therefore included compensation at the rate of 0.5 per cent., the December payment at 1 per cent., the January payment 1.5 per cent. and the February payment 2 per cent. Approximately £15.3 million in compensation has been paid to occupational and personal pension schemes in respect of individual scheme members up to February 1999.

  The level of compensation was discussed with the Government Actuary's Department who agreed that 0.5 per cent. per month represented a reasonable level of compensation given the prevailing market conditions in September 1998, and on the assumption that the arrangements put in place at that time were designed to cover a few months delay. This continues to be their view, and we have no plans to review this rate.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [68856]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 237.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff in the Benefits Agency have been employed for less than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years. [68941]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 3 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many staff in the Benefits Agency have been employed for less than (a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years.
  The information you have asked for is included in the attached table.
  As at 31 December 1998 the Agency employed 66,638 members of staff who had been employed for two years or more.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency permanent and fixed term appointment staff by length of service as at 31 December 1998

  Length of service

  Permanent and fixed-term contract

  Casual staff

  Less than 3 months

  1,478

  1,258

  3 to 6 months

  1,429

  1,251

  6 months to 1 year

  2,342

  1,093

  1 to 2 years

  1,718

  291

  Total

  6,967

  3,893

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Benefits System
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on implementing the policy in the Green Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare", on making the cost of the benefits system more transparent, indicating what further measures are planned in the current year. [69097]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper proposed "greater transparency about entitlement and costs" as one of the measures of success in tackling fraud and error in Social Security. We are committed to making the public more aware of the cost of fraud and error. We will be publishing our strategy on combating fraud and error shortly.

  Deprived Neighbourhoods
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on implementing the policy in the Green Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare", on introducing a better model for tackling effectively the linked problems of the most deprived neighbourhoods. [690991

  Angela Eagle
  The Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing People Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal" was published on 15 September and provided a detailed picture of the concentration of problems in poor neighbourhoods. The report proposed 18 Policy Action Teams to focus on specific areas, and their findings, the last of which is expected at the end of this year, will form the basis of a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.

  Ministers Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which ministers in his Department made use of(a) RAF and (b) chartered aircraft between 1 October 1998 and 31 January 1999; and if he will list the dates, destinations and costs. [69078]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of how many pensioners whose income has been affected by delays in the implementation of the NIRS2 system will have died before they receive(a) repayment and (b) compensation where it is due; and in how many of these cases the estate will revert to the Treasury. [69297]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if widows who have had to choose between receiving widows' pension, or receiving retirement pension without access to their and their husband's full national insurance contribution records, as a result of delays to the implementation of NIRS2, will be allowed to change their decision once the system is fully operational. [69296]
  782
  Mr. Timms
  Where a widow has had to make the choice between remaining in receipt of Widow's Benefit, transferring to Retirement Pension or deferring her pension to accrue increments based on incomplete information because of the NIRS2 problems, and her choice is shown to be disadvantageous to her when full details are known, she will be able to review her decision and revise her choice from the original date if she so wishes.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the indicator period set for each contributions-based benefit which the delay in payment of benefit due to the failure of the NIRS2 computer system must exceed in order for the possibility of compensation to be considered. [69298]

  Mr. Timms
  On Monday 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced a scheme to pay flat rate compensation of £10 to all Retirement Pensioners, Widows Benefit beneficiaries and Incapacity Benefit recipients who have suffered an unreasonable delay as a result of the problems with NIRS2.

  Within the normal Departmental Compensation Scheme, the indicator period which has to be exceeded before payment of compensation is considered is as follows:

  Period

  Retirement Pension

  8 months

  Widows Benefit

  4 months

  Incapacity Benefit

  4 months

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  3 months

  Information on the indicator periods for all benefits is contained in leaflet GL22 "Tell us your comments and complaints", which is available from Benefit Agency offices.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Contributions Agency plans to take to recover the cost of compensating benefit recipients who have lost out as a result of delays in the implementation of the NIRS2 system, from Andersen Consulting. [69300]

  Mr. Timms
  We are considering all appropriate steps within the terms of the NIRS2 agreement.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Contributions Agency of compensating all benefit recipients who have lost out as a result of delays in the implementation of the NIRS2 system. [69299]

  Mr. Timms
  Full details of the additional compensation scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on Monday 1 February have not yet been finalised. Our best estimate is that the costs will be between £3 million and £4 million. Estimates of administration costs and additional amounts payable through the existing Departmental arrangements will be made when details of the scheme are finalised.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Greenwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Finsbury Park Mosque
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate the allegation that a terrorist cell is being run within the mosque in Finsbury Park in north London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, investigations into any activities in this country that may involve criminal or terrorist offences are a matter for the police and the Security Service. All allegations of this kind are, of course, studied closely by the interested agencies. Your Lordships will understand that it would not be right for me to discuss any current inquiries that they may be undertaking.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I nevertheless find slightly unsatisfactory. Will he confirm that as a result of the trial of six of his henchmen in the Yemen at the moment, including his son and stepson, an official request has been received for the extradition of Abu Hamza who is the leader of the Supporters of Sharia? If that is a fact, will the Minister further confirm that the Government will accede to that request and that he will take the necessary steps to stop the activities of Abu Hamza's supporters within the mosque which must contravene the 1998 criminal justice Act which makes it an offence to commit terrorist offences abroad?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it would not be suitable or appropriate for me to comment on judicial proceedings which are still continuing in another jurisdiction. All governments have adhered to the policy which I shall repeat—I think to the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—namely, we never confirm or deny that any such request has been received.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend please assure the House that the Government will take great care that in dealing with cases of this kind they will not stigmatise the Moslem communities of this country? Is he aware that the vast majority of members of those communities are law-abiding, honourable, decent citizens who add a great deal to the diversity and decency of this country
1606
in which we are fortunate to live? The greatest of care must be taken not to attribute to a community the possible sins of individuals within it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is remarkable ignorance in many quarters about the true nature of Islam. It is a tradition of great beauty and wisdom. It has enriched our lives in many, many ways, not least through art, science and philosophy.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how effective has the terrorism and conspiracy Act been in identifying terrorist cells in this country? Will the Minister make sure that the ethnic minority press is used extensively to demonstrate clearly the provisions of that Act and to make it clear that we in this democracy will not tolerate at any stage acts of terrorism committed either in this country or abroad? I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said; namely, that a large number of Moslems in this country are law-abiding citizens and we should value the contribution they make to the good name of this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The overwhelming majority of Moslems in this country are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who detest any suggestion that their religion is polluted by the alleged activities of those who are extreme. Your Lordships will know that the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act has been on the statute book only since August. I believe that it will be an extremely effective tool, as I pointed out when I introduced it, in circumstances not entirely free of controversy.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Supporters of Sharia have a website in which they proclaim that,
"the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware that incendiary material of that kind is on websites. I stress that I believe the legislation we have is extremely effective. I remind the House—I hope to assist your Lordships—that a consultation paper on the subject of taking a new look at anti-terrorism legislation was published in December last year. It followed the admirable report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The consultation period is quite limited and comes to an end on 16th March this year. When we have the results of that consultation we shall have to focus carefully on any gaps which exist in our anti-terrorism legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem really arises in the form in which the Question is put which confuses its purpose? Does he agree that it is not for the Government on any showing to investigate this matter? It is for the police to investigate it. It would be proper to ask if the Government are aware of investigations that are

1607
proceeding and so forth, but to ask them to investigate the matter is frankly impossible. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. That is why I answered in the form I did; namely, that investigations into the alleged activities are a matter for the police and the Security Service. I repeat that it would be extremely imprudent for me to comment on any investigations that may be continuing at the moment. It would simply help those who may or may not be being investigated.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to the question about the website, are words that are threatening, abusive or insulting within the meaning of the Public Order Act caught by that legislation if they appear on a website just as if they appeared on a hard copy document?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any publication in any form is capable of being caught by the present law.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I endorse strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, but as we have a serious, ongoing terrorist threat ourselves in this country and constantly ask for the assistance of other governments in dealing with it, is it not right that we should assist friendly governments in this matter whenever we can?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this Government, like our predecessors, have a good record in assisting in that kind of request. The person whom the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, may have in mind is a British citizen, that citizenship having been granted by our predecessor government.

House of Lords: Members' Interests
3.10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked the Leader of the House:
Whether she will arrange for a committee of the House to consider whether it should now be made mandatory for those Lords who have taken the oath to register matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way they discharge their parliamentary duties.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the straightforward answer to the noble Lord is yes, I will certainly consider establishing such a committee in due course. My understanding of the feeling of the House at present is that this is not regarded as an appropriate time to undertake this particular remit. If I am given countersignals from Members of the House in all quarters, and there is consensus that it would be appropriate to move ahead rapidly with this, I will certainly listen to that advice.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the first part of her Answer. Given the sensible scope of our present register, does the noble Baroness agree that on any occasion when there is adverse publicity—for instance, when a Member of the House has failed to declare an interest which the public as a whole feel should have been declared—such publicity damages the reputation of the House? In this context, does she further agree that the public make no distinction between Law Lords and the rest of us? Does she not accept that this is a matter of urgency and that the sooner the loophole is closed the better it will be for the reputation of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on the noble Lord's general point about the perception of your Lordships' House from outside, I am not sure that I entirely agree. The many people who understand the way in which the House works appreciate that we are not paid to be Members and that it is not in that sense a professional body which needs the kind of arrangements which are perhaps more appropriate in another place.
As to the specific question about the judicial element of your Lordships' House, noble Lords will be aware that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has written recently to the senior Law Lord on this question. At present there are no plans to introduce a separate judicial register of interests.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, apart from one or two exceptions, the current rules on the register of interests work extremely well? Can the noble Baroness give her opinion of the future of the register, given the changes to the composition of this House which are laid out in a Bill that is before another place? If that Bill is passed, will the noble Baroness support a tougher regime of interests?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am very happy to consider a further inquiry into the current regime, if it is the feeling of the House that that should be done with any urgency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the present system has worked to the extent that it was only set up in 1995. As I understand it, the committee designed to look into any potential difficulties has not had to address any difficulties of a formal kind.
As to the nature of the House which may develop as a result of the legislation which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is in front of another place at the moment, when that Bill is passed its provisions will be considered in the light of what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the re-opening of this issue in that context.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, what has happened to the old idea of honour in this country? Can my noble friend explain the thinking behind a further inquiry? Is she aware that every time your Lordships' House or the other place concedes one more inquiry, we just feed the idea that politicians, from beginning to end,

1609
are corrupt? Has my noble friend seen the outcome of a recent opinion poll which showed that 35 per cent. of the people of this country trust politicians. That is not a very high percentage, but at least it is 20 per cent. higher than the percentage of people who trust journalists—15 per cent.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. On the basis of some opinion polls that I have recently seen, he probably exaggerates the enthusiasm of the public for professional politicians. No doubt we have been looking at different polls.
The point about re-opening an inquiry—and perhaps I use the word unadvisedly—was to look at the matter again through a Committee of the Whole House, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said in his original Question. It certainly was not intended to imply any inquisitorial activity. I would remind my noble friend that it was your Lordships' Procedure Committee which suggested that it was time to look again at this issue—but, I re-emphasise, not in an inquisitorial way.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House would deny the imperative necessity of everyone declaring an interest, as we are all enjoined to do. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is equally a danger the other way—which is perhaps becoming increasingly apparent in another place—that if declaration becomes so onerous, not only would it encourage a witch hunt of the kind to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, alluded, but it might discourage able people, from all walks of life, from becoming interested in a career in politics?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely accept in general terms what the noble Viscount has to say. Again I refer to my earlier answer: one of the factors that should always be taken into account when considering the nature of your Lordships' House is that people are not here in the capacity of professional, full-time, salaried politicians. That is obviously of relevance. In the context of the noble Viscount's question, I re-emphasise that the voluntary register of interests is being revised at the moment. The noble Viscount is right to point out that that is widely accepted and understood by your Lordships. The register is open for further additions until the 15th of this month.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the particular matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred is, as the noble Baroness has said, a matter for the judiciary and, particularly, the Lord Chancellor. I was a member of the Griffiths Committee at the time of the debate in your Lordships' House and I was inclined to take the view that the register should go further than was then intended. Despite that—although 1995 is not long ago—I see no evidence at all to show that the decision made by your Lordships' House at that time was not the right one.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. They seem to be consistent with my original reply.

Parthenon Sculptures
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will respond favourably to the Greek Government's request for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords we have no plans to reconsider the decision that the Parthenon sculptures should remain in the British Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is widely recognised as the Government's Pooh-Bah in this Chamber? Is he further aware that on this occasion he has been rather poorly briefed, perhaps through unawareness of the latest developments in this matter. Among those developments are polls which show that there is a substantial majority in favour of the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece; that 69 Members of another place have signed an Early Day Motion to that effect; that the Greek Government have issued from their embassy here an invitation to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to meet with their representatives for a friendly discussion? In all those circumstances, will he recommend to his right honourable friend that he should accept that invitation—a copy of which I shall now hand to him? Will my noble friend pass the invitation on to his right honourable friend and recommend to him that he at least accepts the offer of an open and friendly discussion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend asked me the same question in the first week after the Government were formed. I can assure him that I have kept in close touch with all the debates that have taken place on this issue. If I and the Government have not changed our minds, it is for very good reasons. We are aware of all the matters to which my noble friend has referred; we remain of the view that to return the Parthenon sculptures to Greece would be a mistake. It would raise the issue of a worldwide return of works of art to their places of origin. If our museums and galleries contained only works of art from the cities or countries in which they are located it would be a disaster for world culture.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I intervene as a former trustee and chairman of the British Museum. I make that declaration in the light of the exchanges to which we have just listened. Is the Minister aware that there will be broad general agreement with his Answer that the Government see no grounds for reconsidering their policy on the return of the Elgin Marbles to Athens? Does he accept there is widespread support for the view that to do otherwise would open the door to claims from many other parts of the world for the

1611
restitution of countless valuable museum objects which are seen by huge numbers of people—6 million in the British Museum alone each year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the views I have expressed not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the Government.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the views of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney are not always those held by his colleagues on this side of the House? Is he further aware that I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said? Will he confirm that the announcement by the Secretary of State for Culture in the first week after the last election that the Elgin Marbles, which were accepted perfectly legally, would not be returned to Athens still holds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will of course confirm that that still holds. But just in case any noble Lords should be under the illusion that we have been hasty and lacking in consideration over this matter, I should say that my right honourable friend Chris Smith has been in correspondence with the Greek Minister of Culture over the past year and that, in terms of the recommendation of the UNESCO committee on cultural property, we certainly accept the resolution which requires the Director General of UNESCO to undertake further initiatives to promote bilateral negotiations. We have always been willing to take part in such bilateral negotiations.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not perfectly respectable for a country or a region of a country to say, "We want things brought back to us to which, for historical and cultural reasons, we believe we have a claim"? On the other hand, is there not a perfectly good argument that it is paramount that these treasures should be kept in the best place possible and that the best access to those treasures should be provided? Is it not then a question of reaching a consensus? That is the nub of the question. How does one get consensus between the two views?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope I have never impugned the motives of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. Nor have I ever suggested that his views were not shared by a very large number of people, including those who sign Early Day Motions in another place and a large number of members of the European Parliament. I fully recognise the sincerity of their views. I just happen to believe that they are wrong. I think that the wider considerations to which we have referred are more important.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government not agree that if Lord Elgin had not rescued the marbles in the 19th century it is very likely that they would have been destroyed or that they would have disintegrated by now? Therefore, we have saved them and we should keep them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that would be sufficient reason for arguing for the retention of the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum. Yes, of course it is true that they have been better preserved because they have been preserved indoors in a cleaner atmosphere, but that argument alone would not be enough.
Lord Rea: My Lords, considering the very high symbolic value which the Greeks put on the Elgin Marbles and the fact that we have had them—indeed, we have taken quite good care of them—for more than a century and a half, is it not time that the Greeks were given a chance to house them in their own country? The objection raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, no longer applies. A new museum with proper air-conditioning is now ready to house them and the pollution level in Athens is, I understand, getting better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why I did not accept the invitation of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to argue that that was sufficient reason for them to be returned. I go back to the Government's previous argument that there are wider issues and that the return of works of art, from wherever they come, unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary, is an undesirable precedent.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is one overwhelming reason for the retention of the Marbles in London, which is that, because of its geographic location, it provides the best venue for the enjoyment of the Marbles both by the general public and by art and architecture students who come to London from all over the world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl although I know he wishes to be helpful. There are many works of art of outstanding international importance in the museum in Sao Paulo in Brazil which I would love to be able to see but I cannot go there. I do not say that that is an argument for them to be removed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as a general principle, is not this House in favour of the return of marbles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends on who has lost them, my Lords.

Dennis Halliday: UK Visit
3.26 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any Minister or other representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met Dennis Halliday, the former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom; and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government are well aware of Mr. Halliday's views as he is of the Government's. We did not believe that a meeting between Mr. Halliday and a representative of Her Majesty's Government would bring our positions any closer. We share Mr. Halliday's concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but we do not share his view that sanctions are the cause of their suffering. Rather, Her Majesty's Government agree with the Gulf Co-operation Council communiqué of 9th December which held the Iraqi Government fully responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
We continue to discuss possible improvements to the oil-for-food programme in the UN Security Council with Mr. Halliday's successor, Mr. Hans von Sponeck, and we are pursuing a possible humanitarian initiative with our EU partners.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is very much as I expected. Might it not have been useful and indeed courteous for Her Majesty's Government to have heard the testimony of Mr. Halliday, who is a former high official of the United Nations and a man of great integrity? His views contest with considerable evidence the explanation that my noble friend has given. Is she aware that the oil-for-food programme, even when it is working effectively, is still insufficient to reverse the serious malnutrition and high mortality of Iraqi children—that has been confirmed by the World Health Organisation—let alone repair the wrecked state of the civil infrastructure in Iraq? Is it not time to review our policy towards Iraq, which has now reached stalemate, and join with the rest of the world in favouring a policy that will reach a solution which will involve lifting sanctions in return, it is to be hoped, for a carefully policed arms limitation treaty affecting the whole of the middle east?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have explained to the House why Her Majesty's Government did not think that such a meeting would get anywhere and why it was not appropriate. My noble friend raises two issues. One is the question of the suffering of the Iraqi people. We have not seen the details of the source of Mr. Halliday's claims. We know, from the UN Secretary-General's report in November 1998 that infant malnutrition is decreasing in the northern governorates and that 2.5 billion dollars' worth of foodstuffs has been arriving in Iraq. But that still begs the question, even if there is suffering in Iraq, as to why that is the case. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government take a different view from that expressed by Mr. Halliday, which I suspect is supported by my noble friend. The Government take the view that it is because of the intransigent position taken by the Government of Iraq.
Let us consider that the latest distribution plan put forward by Iraq on the oil-for-food issue includes an allocation of 25 million dollars' worth to a machine that will count banknotes and 100 million dollars' worth for the purchase of telecommunications. That does not strike me as a regime that is interested in the suffering of its own people.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, since we cannot force Iraq to sell oil and buy food and medicine—a fact so clearly demonstrated by the Minister—given the current oil-for-food programme, under which Saddam Hussein plans to order less food and medicine for the Iraqi people than in the previous phases, and given the large amount of medicine that is still sitting, undistributed, in ministry of health warehouses, how does the Minister anticipate that the expansion of the oil-for-food facility, which would eliminate the 5.2 billion ceiling on funds from oil exports, will succeed in easing the humanitarian situation in Iraq, which must be our first priority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support on the matters of fact in relation to the reductions that the Iraqis want and the calorific content of the food. Iraq is selling food to its neighbours—it is certainly selling to Syria and attempting to do so to Jordan. How can we address the matter? An important step was taken at the UN Security Council on 30th January in the setting up of three panels, one of which will examine the humanitarian considerations; another the problem of the missing Kuwaiti prisoners of war; and the third the issues of weapons of mass destruction. Those issues are being considered, not only at United Nations level with the support of the full Security Council, but also with our EU partners. We are alive to the difficulty and are attempting to address it in the fora that are open to us.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the whole House agrees that Saddam Hussein is, by any standards, one of the most evil and dangerous men in the world? That said, will she also accept that, up to now, our sanctions policy seems to have affected the ruling government in Iraq very little and the people of Iraq very much? In the light of that, in the negotiations that are to take place will she bear in mind ways in which sanctions could be more directly targeted at the élite group in Iraq, thus avoiding some of the suffering of the people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I hope that I have addressed those concerned by pointing out to the House ways in which Her Majesty's Government are endeavouring to do this, both through the European Union and the panels set up on 30th January by the Security Council.
We should not, however, write off some of the successes of the oil-for-food programme. For example, the sewerage system in Baghdad has directly benefited from the programme. Improvements of some 20 per cent. have been recorded. We have seen 56 million dollars' worth of food and goods arriving in the agricultural areas of the country. We have also seen an improvement in some of the very distressing infant mortality rates in the northern governorates. Those reports came from the UN Secretary-General as recently as November last year. So, while improvement is needed, it is not all bad news in relation to aid getting through in the oil-for-food programme.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is anticipated that the Easter Recess will include the week beginning Monday 5th April and the Whitsun Recess will include the week beginning Monday 31st May.
The House may also like to note that there will be a debate on Monday 22nd February to draw attention to the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord the Chief Whip for offering us at least one day to debate the White Paper, having initially and rather inexplicably refused the requests of the official Opposition for such a debate. I also thank the noble Lord for partially offering us the dates for both the Easter and the Whitsun Recesses. I hope that at the earliest possible stage he will give the House the exact start and finish dates so that noble Lords who wish to make arrangements, for instance, to travel abroad can get ahead with buying tickets and making their plans.
Will the noble Lord also confirm that another place will be taking a few days' extra holiday the week after next? Does he think that we in this House should be taking an extra holiday? What assurances can he give that, in so doing, another place will not further exacerbate the legislative log-jam which we nearly always experience towards the end of the summer? What guarantees can the noble Lord give that we shall not be sitting into August and that we shall rise at a decent time in July?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord receives full marks for a good try. I did not refuse the request he made; I said that I would consider it.
The other place is taking only a two-day break, on Wednesday 17th and Thursday 18th. I had been considering the possibility of a long weekend for your Lordships. However, the official Opposition were so insistent that a debate on Lords' reform was required that I felt bound to oblige them—even though the House has recently held a two-day debate on this topic; debated the reform on a traditional Queen's Speech day; and even though a Bill is to be debated during this Session. I am afraid that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip cannot have it both ways.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 7,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 8 to 14,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 15 to 22,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 23 to 34,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 35 and 36,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 37 to 50,
Schedule 7,
Clause 51,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 52 to 60,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 61 to 74,
Schedule 10,
Clause 75,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 76 to 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Disability Rights Commission]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("and fulfil its duties as established by section 2(1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is set in the framework of an important and warmly welcomed Bill. It is a very significant measure. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Committee expeditiously. I intend to speak as briefly as possible to this and other amendments so that the Bill has a fair wind.
The purpose of the amendment is to discuss the adequacy of the amount of money allocated by the Government—which I believe to be inadequate. I am not saying that many more millions of pounds are needed; however, I believe that the commission will stutter along unless it is adequately financed. The £11 million allocated by the Government, plus £3 million for start-up, is nothing like the amount of money that the Commission for Racial Equality has. There can be no doubt that the problems of disability are far greater than those of race or sex in so far as disability issues are far more complicated. There are between 5 and 7 million disabled people. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Act is very complicated.
For all those reasons much more money must be provided. Susan Scott-Parker of the Employers' Forum on Disability, who is a considerable expert on these matters, has said that given the complexity of the legislation and the number of disabled people the commission's budget should be significantly more and not less than that of the CRE.
I believe that the Committee is entitled to an explanation of how the Government have reached this figure. I should like to receive a full explanation of it from my noble friend. In response to a Parliamentary Question in the other place all the Minister did was to explain how the money might be allocated. That is helpful information. But how did the Government arrive at this figure? On what criteria did they base the figure? If the Minister responds to those points we shall be able to discuss this Bill far more intelligently than at present. At the moment we are in the dark.
The word "reasonable" runs throughout the Act with which this Bill is concerned. As no one knows what is reasonable until the courts have decided the matter there will be many cases that seek to define what is reasonable. I hope that an adequate sum of money will be allocated for all of these cases. The commission must be a state-of-the-art model, fully accessible and provide information in alternate and alternative ways. For example, different formats are required for blind people, deaf people and those with learning disabilities. I hope that that will be accepted. The fact is that the full White Paper on the disability rights commission was not available in Braille even on request. Braille readers must make do with a very short summary. This is an inadequate provision. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give this amendment a fair wind. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad that at the beginning of our debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raises the question of the amount of money that is to be made available. As I understand it, the Government have indicated that about £3 million will be available to set up the commission and that it will run on £11 million a year. The disability organisations that have contacted me believe that that cannot possibly be enough. I recognise that nothing will ever be enough to meet all of the aspirations that have been raised.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that there are all kinds of disabilities. This body is not like the Equal Opportunities or Race Relations Commissions. There are very many different kinds of disability, for example the blind and the deaf to whom the noble Lord referred. Within that there are many degrees of severity of disability. A huge number of rights of all kinds will be raised. As I indicated at Second Reading, it will be difficult for the commission to decide where to begin and what should and should not be recognised as serious rights that have been infringed. I should also like to hear at an early stage the Government's response to the noble Lord's amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: As the Committee is aware, for many years my noble friend Lord Ashley chaired the All-Party Disablement Group of MPs and
1618
Peers, of which he is now joint chairman. What he said in moving the amendment reflects the concern of that important group about the vital necessity to ensure adequate funding of the disability rights commission. As he said, disability organisations are not convinced that the funding announced is adequate to support the substantial duties of the commission. They seek an explanation from the Government of how the figure of £11 million has been calculated. Nor are they alone. As my noble friend said, the Employers' Forum on Disability, too, has expressed concern about the budget. Its chief executive has commented:
"The Forum has sought a legislative framework which positions disability clearly on a par with race and gender as a national priority, and we welcome the establishment of a central authoritative body. Our concern, however, must be that unless sufficient moneys are allocated parity will simply not be achieved".
Substantial funds need to be set aside for its work in supporting disabled people and on communication aids and advocacy. The commission will need to be a model of accessibility. This will include providing information in alternative formats and supporting people with learning disabilities, about which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will want to speak.
It was most disturbing that, as my noble friend said, the full White Paper on the disability rights commission was not available in Braille even on request. Braille readers had to make do with a short summary. Full access for all disabled people may require a specialist team of workers within the commission. The commission itself will be liable under the Disability Discrimination Act and, as a public body, under the Human Rights Act. Should the commission use its power to set up regional offices to provide local information, advice and support to disabled people and business, £11 million is unlikely to be adequate. The Commission for Racial Equality has such a regional presence and has funding of £14.5 million. Given the extra costs related to accessibility and advising on the complicated issue of reasonable adjustments, the costs of the disability rights commission may be significantly higher.
This amendment like others tabled by my noble friend merits a positive response from the Government. I know that my noble friend the Minister will at least want to assure us today that the funding announced so far is not unalterable and that she will do all that she can to help in conveying our concern to her ministerial colleagues.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, that the commission should have the widest possible power to meet its expenses. But I am sorry to say that from a technical point of view the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, would have the opposite effect. This is a technical matter. I hope that in the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I may be realistic and use the Latin expression,
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius".
If one expresses one thing one excludes another or others.

1619
Under subsection (2) as it stands there is no limitation:
"The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commission such sums as he thinks fit to enable it to meet its expenses".
That is without limitation. Therefore, in my humble opinion, if the wishes of the noble Lord are to be fulfilled he should leave the Bill as it is and not press his amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like to support the amendment briefly and touch on one or two matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. He made reference to the assertion of the Employers' Forum on Disability that the funding was inadequate. It is worth reminding ourselves that if it proves to be inadequate it will considerably disadvantage businesses as much as disabled people.
The noble Lord said that the commission needs to be a model of best practice, with all the support services required. Those are expensive. One nasty thought has been expressed to me. Might the commission be accused of discrimination if it is unable to provide adequate access to its services and building? No one wants that to happen. Everyone wants the commission to be a great success; we welcome it tremendously. I am sure the Minister also wants it to succeed. I hope that she can be encouraging and say that it will not falter through lack of funding.
Lord Rix: In supporting the amendment, I refer to the remarks of two noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the only Latin I can remember from my school days is from Ovid:
"Dum vires annique sinunt tolerate labores
Iam veniet tacito curva senecta pede".
Roughly translated, that means, "While years and strength allow, tolerate labour. Soon will come bent old age with silent foot". I regret that that probably applies to many of us in this Chamber. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a shining example to us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, used the phrase "learning difficulties". At the outset of the Committee stage, perhaps I may stress that when we talk about "learning difficulties" we are not talking about "learning disabilities". The Bill applies to learning disabilities, originally known as mental handicap. "Mental handicap" is a phrase no longer used by the department, people with learning disabilities or, indeed, MENCAP. The phrase "learning difficulties" means something different. Millions of people in this country have learning difficulties which have nothing to do with learning disability: people with short sight; those who are hard of hearing; people with dyslexia. Those are learning difficulties. I hope that for the purposes of the Bill we shall stick to the phrase "learning disability".
I accept with great happiness my fourth billing to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. Can the Government give us any assurances that they will take into full account the cost implications of
1620
providing advocacy support in addition to the standard operational costs of the commission to which reference has already been made?
Lord Swinfen: I, too, have put my name to the amendment. I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I would not wish to press the amendment at this stage. Its purpose is to elicit information from the Government. I hope that the Minister will be fulsome in her answer in providing a lot of information on how the figure has been worked out by the Treasury. Did the Treasury talk to any other department? Did it talk to the Department of Trade and Industry to see what would be required? Did it talk to employers' organisations and trade union organisations?
I suspect that once the commission is up and running there will be far more work than may be envisaged at present. Where will the commission be based? How many regional offices will it have? If it is properly to help employers to provide adequate alterations to their premises, equipment and working practices, it will need people based all over the country. It is a practical point; it is not nebulous.
There is no point in taking the time and trouble to debate the Bill in both Houses of Parliament if the Government are not prepared to produce the funds to make it work properly. I am sure the Government want it to work properly. When the Disability Discrimination Bill was going through this House some years ago, I was one who advocated that a commission should be incorporated in that Bill. Members on the Labour Benches—at that time in Opposition—gave me considerable support, for which I was grateful. They have now brought forward this Bill and I hope that their baby will be properly clothed and not allowed to come into the world naked and cold where it will perish through lack of proper funding.
Lord Addington: Has the Minister any figures as regards the number of man hours and the skills required? I refer to the supply of information about the workings of the commission. Can the amount of money provided be based on that information? It is not enough to say that there will be almost as much money as that provided for another commission.
The amendment may be technically defective, but we are at Committee stage and wish to elicit information. It is to be hoped that, if we receive the right answers, we can drop this matter and move to other issues. However, if the Government cannot assure us that sufficient funds will be available, we shall have to revisit the subject on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister will give us answers which refer to the technicalities of the job.
Baroness Blatch: When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope she will confirm that the word "expenses" is understood in the wider sense rather than in the narrow sense of "expenses", and that any funding of the body is intended to fulfil the duties established by Clause 2(1). Clause 2(1) provides that the commission shall have duties,
"to work towards the elimination of discrimination …. ; to promote the equalisation of opportunities …. ; and to keep under review the working of the Disability Discrimination Act".

1621
There are two issues here. One is adequacy. My noble friends, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Croy, have said that there will never be enough money. Any government in power will have to make a judgment about what can be afforded. But the important point is that we want the commission to work. We also want to minimise the need for litigation. For this body to do its job properly and to keep cases out of court it needs to be practical on the ground, around the country, and proffer helpful advice in particular to business, commerce and institutions which will have obligations not only under this legislation but under the Disability Discrimination Act. It needs to work alongside people. That will be costly.
It is inexplicable why the Commission for Racial Equality is to be funded so much more generously. I believe that the work of the commission will be far more complex. It will address the needs of many more people in the community than does the CRE. Its work will be more practical and on the ground. It will involve all four corners of the country. For that reason it would be helpful to know the technical work which was undertaken by the Government to arrive at the figure referred to. What is their justification for funding the CRE more generously than this body?
The body must work effectively in the interests of disabled people in this country. It must do so in the most practical and positive way; that is, by helping people in a practical way to meet their obligations under the legislation without having to resort to the courts which, at the end of the day, will be more expensive.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that I shall be able to match the Latin quotations. My O-level Latin may not run to that in responding to the debate.
The sums payable by the Secretary of State are intended to allow the commission to fulfil all its main functions. The wording of Clause 1(2) is intended to achieve that. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made clear, Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary and I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, indicated that it is a probing amendment.
Before answering the various questions, perhaps I may put the record straight. There appears to be confusion about whether the White Paper was available in braille. I understand that the whole White Paper was indeed available in braille on request to anyone who wanted it. A number of copies were sent to a member of the taskforce representing the RNIB.
The amendment raises an issue about the level of funding for the commission. That is what my noble friend and others who have supported the amendment wish to debate. I accept that and understand their concerns. The provisional estimate—it must be provisional at this time—of the running costs for the commission, which is £11 million a year, compares well with the existing commission, where the functions are similar. I shall turn to that issue in a moment.
The commission is a new organisation working in a complex area and therefore we have allocated it considerably more resources than its sister organisation,
1622
the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, Members of the Committee will appreciate that it is not right to compare the allocation for the disability rights commission with the £15 million budget of the Commission for Racial Equality. That issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I must explain that £4 million of the £15 million is spent on funding racial equality councils. They are not part of the CRE, but seek to replicate the type of network which exists in the context of disability through many voluntary organisations and other arrangements. Therefore, the funding comparison should be with the £11 million remainder for the Commission for Racial Equality. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the funding is equitable.
I assure the Committee that the Government are determined that the disability rights commission should be funded to carry out its role effectively. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Explanatory Notes, which were published alongside the Bill, made it clear that £3 million had been set aside for 1999 to 2000 to establish the commission and that there will be a provisional allocation of £11 million for 2000 to 2001 and 2001 to 2002. The real point is that the figures for the two later years may be adjusted in the light of experience within the overall comprehensive spending review settlement of the Department for Education and Employment.
I am not sure whether I shall satisfy my noble friend Lord Ashley or other noble Lords who asked for a breakdown of the £11 million. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about discussions between departments. Of course we have discussed with the Treasury the funding for this new body, but the final decision on how much was needed was made after extensive consideration, and with other departments, by my own department. The estimates were made using the best information available at the time, including experience with comparable public bodies. Obviously, there is no public body which is completely comparable and so the exercise is difficult. It will be for the commission to determine how to allocate its resources once it has been established.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that we would expect the commission to spend most of its budget on providing advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals, formal investigations and promotion and policy work, with central administrative costs being tightly controlled. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said that we want it to work without too much litigation. It will have succeeded if we have a minimal amount of litigation. We want practical, common sense approaches to ensure that discrimination against disabled people does not exist.
There is no reason to believe that the funding will not be adequate for the commission to undertake its enforcement work and promotional activities. However, it is always the case that when drawing up a budget for a new body we must rely on estimates. It is not possible to be as precise as the noble Lord, Lord Addington,

1623
implied. It would be asking a lot of the Government to work out now exactly what the man hours of the commission will be. It is rather early.
Lord Addington: I wonder what process has been undertaken in order to arrive at the figure. Many of us are worried about that. We would like to know what process has been undertaken in arriving at the figure and the amount of expertise required. We do not have that information, but if it could be provided we might be able to conclude the debate quickly.
Baroness Blackstone: As I have said, the figure is an estimate. I do not believe that it would be useful to go through longwinded processes. The estimate is based on comparable public bodies, including the Commission for Racial Equality. The amount is much more than the Equal Opportunities Commission has. I stress to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester that on Second Reading I made it clear that the Government are willing to review the position in the light of the operating experience of the commission. We would be unreasonable were we not prepared to do so. In the meantime, I am as confident as it is possible to be that the estimates are reasonable and that the commission will have the resources to enable it to make an effective start. That is in all our interests.
I hope that I have provided my noble friend and other noble Lords with as satisfactory an answer as possible about funding. While I recognise the wish to put down a marker, I hope that my noble friend and others will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister referred to comparability with other bodies. A number of us who have spoken to the amendment made it clear that we believe that the work of the body will be infinitely greater than that of the CRE. The Minister also referred to £4 million being used by the Commission for Racial Equality for outpostings around the country. Is she suggesting that there will be no need for this body to outpost around the country? I believe that there will be a very real need for its work to be seen to be effective on the ground, and more so in that access for people whose rights are being protected by the commission are such that the more locally the service is delivered the better.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, asked the Minister whether there would be regional offices and if so how many. I believe that there must be regional offices so that in each region there will be places from which people can go out to firms, industry and employers of one kind or another in order to give advice and deal with all the duties of the commission. It cannot all be done from one place. Where does the Minister envisage their headquarters will be?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot yet answer the question as to where the headquarters will be; that is still to be decided. We are anticipating a later amendment on the issue of regional offices and perhaps further
1624
discussion ought to wait until we reach that point. There will be regional offices in Scotland and in Wales. However, we should try to stick to the amendment we are considering and not discuss later ones at this stage.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little on what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Disability Rights Task Force considered carefully how the disability rights commission should operate within existing local and national networks. While it recognised the clear benefits of working with and developing further those networks, it did not feel that the statute should be prescriptive. The relationship between the disability rights commission and existing networks will be completely different to that between the Commission for Racial Equality and the race equality councils. They are different kinds of bodies. The commission will need to explore how best to develop the relationship.
It would be a mistake at this point, by putting provisions on the face of the Bill, to ask the commission to accept specific forms of network, particularly in view of the fact that many already exist. In the light of that explanation, I hope that Members of the Committee understand the difference between the CRE and the new commission.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, will she answer my question as to whether advocacy support provision has been included in the estimates?
Baroness Blackstone: The DRC will have to provide for advocacy for those who need it. Given that it is a commission for disabled people, it will certainly consider the needs of all people with disabilities and impairments. That may answer the second point the noble Lord raised.
Baroness Blatch: I have to say to the noble Baroness that I am no clearer as to the distinction between the work of the CRE and that of the commission. The noble Baroness did not address the specific point as to why the CRE has a stronger case for working through outposts than the new commission.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I should try once again to explain that when the Commission for Racial Equality was set up, it did not have the kind of network that exists already in the field of disability and therefore it was decided many years ago that there should be race equality councils. As I understand it, they operate separately from the CRE itself and have slightly different kinds of functions.
Nothing is ruled out in terms of the commission wishing to establish at some later date a network along similar lines. But we must take into account what the Disability Rights Task Force said on this matter. It was quite clear. It did not wish it to be expressed on the face of the Bill; it did not want prescription. It would be wrong to reject that argument at this point.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My noble friend the Minister said that there are differences between the proposed commission and the CRE, and she is right. But there are other differences too.

1625
I suggest that the question of race or sex is far simpler than that of disability. Race is a simple matter of "ethnic or not". People are either male or female and there are just two choices. Disability is phenomenally complicated. There are around 8 million disabled people in Britain, every one with a different kind of disability. Most of them react differently and most are treated differently. They require all kinds of different assistance.
The Commission for Racial Equality has a simple task by comparison. How my noble friend can compare the two and conclude by saying that they get about the same money proves to me that her staff should do a bit more work on this. I hope that she will take into account the fact that practically everyone who spoke—with the glittering exception of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—is in favour of the amendment. My noble friend should take the matter away and think about it.
My noble friend says that she will review the matter later. But, again, that is the wrong kind of judgment. It is better to get it right now rather than botch it at the beginning and come back saying, "We have made mistakes; it was penny-pinching; we were short. What shall we do?" If my noble friend will take this away and come back with something positive on Report, then we will make progress.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can say this. I agree with all his motives, but I am afraid that his amendment may defeat them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall leave the matter with my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [General functions]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("; and
( ) to keep under review those parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 which it deems applicable to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, with permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15 which has a similar objective.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I can intervene; the noble Lord has been given notice of this. The grouping shows that Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are to be taken together. That seemed to me to be most inappropriate. Amendment No. 2 deals with the Human Rights Act whereas Amendment No. 6 is the one to which the noble Baroness referred just now and deals with regional offices. That is a completely different subject and is not dependent on human rights.
1626
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, as I imagined would be the case, that he wants to speak to Amendment No. 15 which also deals with human rights. If the Committee agrees, perhaps Amendment No. 6 could be dealt with separately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: We welcome guidance on this matter. Judging from the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and that of the Minister, that will be warmly welcomed. It worried me enormously. I do not propose to speak to Amendment No. 6, but to Amendments Nos. 2 and 15 instead.
Amendment No. 2 provides for the Human Rights Act to be included in the statute rather than sanctioned by regulation. It has been argued that inserting the Act through regulation gives it some flexibility, given that the Human Rights Act is not to be implemented until the year 2000 and these issues need clarifying. That is a reasonable point of view. On the other hand, if the Government have that in mind, there is no reason why the power should not be on the face of the Bill.
The issues about the implementation of the Human Rights Act ought to have been clarified by the time the new commission is active. Amendment No. 2 simply seeks to put the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill. That will offer important new rights to individuals in relation to how they are treated by public institutions. It does not apply to private sector organisations.
These amendments will give the commission the power to assist individuals at proceedings and help in the elimination of discrimination. To include a reference to the 1998 Act in this legislation would cause no delay for disabled people in cases where the Act would help them and would be most valuable.
The amendment confers no new rights on disabled people but merely provides for the commission, as the repository of expertise on disability, to help disabled people to secure their rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not concern business but relates to what is due to individuals from public institutions, many of them part of government.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister quoting the Disability Rights Task Force. She obviously thinks the world of it, as we all do. As my noble friend thinks so much of it, I am sure that she has noticed that that authoritative body recommended that the 1998 Act should be on the face of the Bill. In view of the fact that my noble friend thinks so highly of the task force, I am sure that she is minded to say, "Yes, we accept". I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I have put my name to Amendment No. 15, which I presume we are now taking with Amendment No. 2.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is of the greatest possible importance in the protection of people with learning disabilities. I support both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Lord Swinfen: Both amendments are so logical that the Government may have some difficulty with them. I hope not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This group of amendments is concerned with advising the Government on the Human Rights Act 1998.
In addition to its general duties, noble Lords will be aware that Clause 2(3)(a) of the Bill already includes a power for the commission to give advice to the Government on any aspect of the law or proposed changes to the law, for any purpose connected with the elimination of discrimination and the performance of its other functions. That extends to all legislation applying to England, Scotland and Wales, including Community law and the international obligations of the UK.
Turning to Amendment No. 2 tabled by my noble friend, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, the Government are not opposed in principle to the commission providing government with its views on the Human Rights Act 1998 where its provisions have relevance to the elimination of discrimination. There is, then, nothing to prevent the commission from making recommendations to government concerning that Act.
We do not, however, believe that it is necessary to express that power as a duty to be included on the face of the Bill. The disability rights commission will pursue its duties vigorously and it will certainly take an interest in the 1998 Act where it considers it relevant to do so. We believe that the core duties of the commission in relation to legislation should be focused more directly on addressing disability discrimination issues. That is why we have provided in Clause 2(1)(c) for it to have a duty to keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 1998 and this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Amendment No. 15 concerns the disability rights commission's power to assist individuals in cases that involve breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government share the determination of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken that the commission shall be a body with sufficient powers to tackle effectively discrimination against disabled people. In recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission, the Disability Rights Task Force urged the Government to consider carefully the impact of the 1998 Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why we raised the issue in the White Paper, Promoting Disabled People's Rights. We intend to keep faith with that recommendation.
We have included powers in Clause 6(1)(b) that would allow the extension of the commission's powers, and we have made clear our intention to consider extending through regulations the range of legal proceedings in which the commission can assist individuals. That will provide a degree of flexibility, to allow us to respond to changing circumstances and needs, and also to review the powers of the commission in the light of experience.
1628
The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill indicate that we will certainly consider including in the regulations Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires public authorities not to act in a way that is incompatible with a right under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This issue involves complex questions of law and practice and we want to consider the detail carefully in consultation with others. The Human Rights Act 1998 has only recently received Royal Assent. Many of its provisions have yet to come into force and many will not do so for some time. We do not expect Section 6 to come into force before the year 2000. By then, we hope to have considered the issue in more detail.
We do not need to rush into taking a decision. We have time to approach it in a measured way. I hope that noble Lords will see that there is wisdom in that approach. We are advocating caution, which should not be mistaken for avoidance. I stress that the reasons for proceeding that way are entirely practical. The regulation-making power will give us time to consider the many complicated issues involved and to seek advice where necessary. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ashley agrees that including a regulation-making power, as has been done in Clause 6, is the proper way to approach this complex issue and will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful for that explanation but I was not happy to hear my noble friend say that the commission will "take an interest". We are seeking something much more. My noble friend said that the Government will need time to consider the matter, which I appreciate and understand. I ask my noble friend to give the issue consideration before Report stage and return with a more constructive response. I appreciate the difficulty that faces him. The matter is terribly complex and difficult. I am not pressing the matter strongly at this stage but I hope that my noble friend will be able to do a bit better and accommodate us more at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to couple my remarks on this amendment with Amendment No. 4. There will be a ring of familiarity about an amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall" because it comes up in almost every Bill and is the bugbear of every official in Whitehall. They do not like such amendments, and neither do the Treasury counsel, but it gives this particular Bill important emphasis.
One key concern is to ensure that the commission does not merely litigate or encourage litigation. Returning to my old theme, the commission should not be legalistic but work with people, employers and others, to ensure that they understand the obligations and how to apply the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which is practical work for the commission in eliminating as far as possible the need to end up in court.
An essential element of the commission's work is education, and that will be high-profile. The amendment proposes strengthening the reference to the commission's role in encouraging good practice, by making it a requirement, not permissive, to do just that. We do not want the commission abandoning the encouragement of good practice to focus on a legalistic approach. Nor do we want its educational role to be permissive. We want a requirement that the commission gets into the business of providing information and practical support. That way, the commission is more likely to achieve what is needed for disabled people. That will encourage the right environment and atmosphere for companies to meet their requirements and obligations, rather than view the commission's work as an unwelcome imposition leading to greater costs.
I have a simple point to make on Amendment No. 4. The Bill does not refer to agencies, so the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the power covers government agencies. That may well be implicit in the wording of the Bill. However, in the light of Pepper v. Hart and the importance of having a full understanding of what the Bill means, I should like to have on the record the fact that agencies are subsumed in the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: As the noble Baroness says, the argument about "may" and "shall" is familiar. I think that this is the first time that we have been on the same side in a "may" and "shall" argument. I hope that that is a sign of good things to come.
As the noble Baroness said, the provision encourages the commission to take on the role of providing information. That would be good practice and would strengthen the Bill. The lawyers already have enough paydays!
The Government should welcome Amendment No. 4 with open arms, at least in principle, because it calls for "joined-up government". I believe that that is the expression. I hope that the Government will tell us that at least that concept is taken on board. It would help if they could point to the exact part of the Bill which achieves that, even if the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I support my noble friend Lady Blatch on this amendment. Since the passing of the 1995 Act, Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled, for which I work, has put an enormous amount of effort into selling the merits of that Act to people by way of persuasion, which I understood was the original purpose of the Act. We are anxious that the commission handles legal proceedings with delicate hands. We spend over £600,000 every year—money collected from the public—to pay for our work. Included in that is a lot of propaganda about getting disabled people into employment. We have now had two presentations of the Ease of Access, Services and Employer (EASE) awards, first, at the Dorchester and this year at the Hilton Hotel. Awards are given for employing and providing services for disabled people.
1630
My anxiety is that by bringing the law into this arena in a heavy-handed fashion people will be put off and that much of the work done and the money spent will disappear down the drain because people will become antagonistic towards disabled people. Therefore, I could not endorse the amendments more, and I support them entirely.
Lord Swinfen: I think that it is intended in the Bill—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the commission will encourage good practice, and it will have a duty to do so. The word "may" is purely permissive and may also be considered as "may not". The word "shall" is an imperative and has to be obeyed.
Lord Rix: I consider that the word "may" is as much a weasel word as the phrase "when resources allow". I should have thought that it was perfectly easy to remove subsection (2) and to make it part of Clause 2(1) as a new paragraph (d). Clause 2 would then read:
"The Commission shall have the following duties—…
(d) to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity".
That would seem to be a simple amendment and one that would follow on naturally.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have not been a Member of your Lordships' House for very long, but long enough to know that the issue of "shall" and "may" provides us with many happy hours of debate. I would hazard a guess that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been on the other side of the fence, in times past, on this issue.
The noble Baroness seeks, through Amendment No. 3 to make it a duty of the commission to encourage good practice. It may be helpful if I provide some clarification. Clause 2(1) of the Bill sets out the commission's primary duties, which include working towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and promoting the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. There is some overlap between the duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities and encouraging good practice. However, to avoid any doubt, Clause 2(2) makes clear the commission's ability, within its general duties, to encourage good practice.
Noble Lords are, of course, aware of the importance of encouraging good practice in the context of disability. It will be essential that organisations learn from each other, and from disabled people, how to avoid discrimination and how to find solutions to difficulties which may arise.
Sometimes what is useful and most effective goes beyond what is strictly required by legislation. Simple things like disability awareness and disability etiquette training can do much to change attitudes as well as help to avoid unlawful acts of discrimination. There is no doubt that the disability rights commission will have a key role to play in identifying good practice and helping to spread the message to others who may benefit from adopting it.

1631
I do not disagree at all with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have remarked on the importance of education.
The intention of the drafting of Clause 2(2) is to allow the commission flexibility in how it promotes good practice where it thinks it appropriate. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that the commission should be free to decide—and indeed would be best placed to know—what that is at all times. I fear that placing a duty on the commission to do so may well have the effect of constraining it, rather than giving it flexibility.
Perhaps I may illustrate that. The duty extends to any field of activity in the context of disability discrimination. That covers many fields. One must ask whether it would be right to make it mandatory for the commission to be active in every one of those fields at all times, or does the best use of the DRC's time and resources require the exercise of good judgment and discretion? Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. Of course, the commission should have the ability to offer advice on the practical application of the law—to government agencies, for example, the Health and Safety Executive, and to others—whenever it believes it necessary or sensible in connection with its general duties, with a view to eliminating discrimination or equalising opportunities for disabled people. I can confirm that the Bill allows for it to do so.
Clause 2(3)(a) refers specifically to providing advice and information, but Clause 2(1) provides the terms of the commission's general duties and allows the commission to do anything that it wants, within those general duties—that is, anything that works towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and/or equalises opportunities for disabled people in any field of activity. That applies to government agencies also.
I hope that noble Lords are persuaded that Clause 2 allows the commission sufficient powers in this respect and that this amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move it.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I am not entirely satisfied with what has been said. Nevertheless, it is still only "may" encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity. The noble Lord has not emphasised the duty to do so. The Bill provides only for the commission to do what it wants to do. Given that encouraging good practice will be the commission's predominant task, there should be a requirement on it to do so, rather than the commission having merely a discretionary power, as is provided on the face of the Bill.
I do not mind how that is achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a good and practical suggestion. I would support achieving our objective in that way. We shall
1632
certainly return to this amendment at the next stage because it is important to press such a duty on the commission.
On Amendment No. 4, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for specifically asking for us to be guided to the part of the Bill where the Government's intention is made clear. In fact, the Minister guided us to Clause 2(3)(a). There is nothing in that provision which, in a legal sense, gives a duty to advise government agencies. It simply says that there is no limit to the commission's powers and that it can, if it wishes, advise anybody it likes. What I was trying to say is that it should be required and have a duty pressed upon it to advise government agencies as well as government. Why, for example, have a subsection (3)(a) and a subsection (3)(b) if we are not prepared to consider including government agencies? They provide a very large part of public services these days.
I am decidedly dissatisfied with the response given by the noble Lord. I am sorry he cannot be more encouraging in saying that it will be spelt out somewhere on the face of the Bill that "government departments" includes government agencies. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, too, has put down an amendment referring to government programmes. I feel that agencies should be referred to in a much more specific way. We shall certainly return to this, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() The Commission shall have the power to initiate proceedings in its own name or to apply to intervene in proceedings if it believes that an unlawful act has occurred or is about to occur under the 1995 Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is very important and I hope it will be given a warm welcome by my noble friend the Minister. It is going to save the Government money, and anything put forward in that respect ought to be welcomed by any Minister.
Basically, this amendment will enable prevention—which, as we know, is far less costly than expensive cures—and as it stands the Bill means that the commission can only assist individuals to bring cases. The CRE and the EOC have greater powers, which enable them to take action under their own name in some circumstances. If the commission could initiate such proceedings and prevent discrimination from occurring, there would be no need for all the paraphernalia of non-discriminatory notices, tribunals, courts and all the rest of it.
My noble friend says that she is anxious not to have too many legal cases and so become too involved and too absorbed in the law. I fully agree; and we all hope that this commission will be constructive. Nevertheless, if we are going to avoid that kind of thing, the sooner we can stop discriminatory action arising the better. In situations where discrimination has been practised, it would be more effective if the commission could act with disabled people as witnesses.
The experience of other commissions has shown that the promotion of equality and the eradication of discrimination cannot be achieved through individual cases alone. The combined strategy of test cases, powers to investigate and provision for action plans is required. Relevant powers should be in place from the start. To take a point I was making a little earlier, if we are able to stop something from happening, it is far better than trying to fix it if it is not broken. A classic example perhaps might be if a bus company decided to build a new bus station that was inaccessible, contrary to the requirements of the Act. The commission should not have to wait for someone to complain to it while the bus station is being built. If it had the power to bring an injunction to stop that building going ahead, we could avoid a very great deal of trouble.
The EOC and CRE have called for the power that we are asking for by means of this amendment to be granted. Experience has indicated very clearly to them that this power is vital to the proper running of a commission and these commissions know from their own experience that it is necessary. I should be very surprised if my noble friend is unable to meet us on this issue. This is one of the most important amendments of this whole batch brought before the committee. If my noble friend is unable to agree, then I am afraid this is something which will be fought very strongly both in your Lordships' Chamber and in the other place. We feel very deeply about this and, given her usual co-operative attitude, I fully expect this amendment to be met with the words, "We accept this amendment without debate".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment. Disabled people, as a general rule, are not as wealthy as those who are not disabled and they may well not be able to bring cases on their own behalf because they cannot afford it. With the changes that are being made to the legal aid system, in my view they are going to be even less likely to afford it.
If the commission has the power to bring actions, that power alone will very often be sufficient to persuade those who are being discriminatory to stop their bad practices, and to move them in the right direction. If you do not have a stick you cannot wave it. I am not advocating that people should go round with sticks, waving them or using them, but they are very useful to have in the back of the car on occasions.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I should like to support this amendment. I agree very much with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has made. It is a question not only of whether a disabled person can actually afford it but a question of the distress and the very long time that it takes for these cases to be heard in court. There are some very complex cases and I wonder, both in terms of money and of people who have the ability to sit through long cases and those who cannot, whether the Act in itself is not being discriminatory, since it is discriminating between those people who can afford it and those who cannot, and those who have the ability to take a long case and those who have not.
1634
If there are many people involved in a case, why should one name have to be picked out as the person who actually takes that case? I feel that is very wrong indeed. Surely it is just common sense and, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, much better and more cost-effective for a joint case to be taken. There may also be instances where a case should be taken but the person concerned does not have the ability to take that case, either because he or she has learning disabilities or communication disabilities, and has nobody to look to for support. I feel that this matter really does deserve serious examination.
Nor is the concept new. I remember many years ago being involved in the case of Sikh men who wished to wear turbans in order to travel on Leeds city buses, which is where I was involved. It seemed to me then that it was necessary for them to take a case jointly in order to succeed. They did that and they actually got the law changed. So this is not new and it should be something which we are prepared to accept. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is already considering the question of class actions, and if he were to decide in favour of allowing them, provision would still be needed in the Act to allow the commission to proceed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that that is the case and that this will be built into the Act.
Lord Morris of Manchester: This is a deeply important amendment. When your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading on 17th December last, I paid warm tribute to Sir Peter Large who, as long ago as 1982, spelt out the case for a disability rights commission in the report of the committee of inquiry he chaired into hurtful discrimination against disabled people. His thoughts have again been most helpful to me in relation to this amendment and others we are debating today. I am most grateful to him, as I am also to Agnes Fletcher of the All-Party Disablement Group, Alun Thomas of the RNIB, Rowena Daw of the RNID and Hadas Altwarg of Scope for all their work on the amendments and the briefing in which they have documented the cases.
Giving the commission power to initiate proceedings in its own name would greatly increase its ability to perform its agreed basic functions, which are set down in Clause 2(1). It might be argued that such powers are unnecessary as the commission is already empowered to undertake formal investigations and issue non-discrimination notices. Some may think that these powers are sufficient. In this respect, Sir Peter Large says in a letter to me:
"In some instances, however, a formal investigation culminating in a non-discrimination order would constitute a mail order for a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
He goes on to say that this would certainly be the result of serving an injunction to stop a company constructing some inaccessible public facility. His fear is that, by the time a non-discrimination order is posted, the facility would be complete and discrimination have become unavoidable.
The use of such a power to initiate proceedings in its own name could be particularly valuable to the commission in the early days of the Disability

1635
Discrimination Act when knowledge of its scope, the reasons for it and how discrimination can be avoided are still rare among the public at large. It is interesting to note that both the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality asked for similar powers to those now sought by this amendment. Let us learn from their experiences over many years and provide the disability rights commission with such powers from the start. In my opinion some swift, inexpensive mechanism to prevent wrongdoing would greatly enhance the ability of the commission to fulfill its responsibilities.
That unjustified discrimination against disabled people is still alive and well is clear to everyone who knows the realities of life for disabled people seeking equal opportunities at work. Many noble Lords will have seen the disturbing report today which shows that disabled people emerged as the biggest losers in the Government's performance pay system, which it is hoped to extend to millions of people in the public sector. Only 1 per cent. of disabled staff at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions received a grade "A", which compared with 5.8 per cent. of able bodied employees. That, like so much other evidence, points to the importance of this Bill and the urgency of the need to make it as strong and effective as we can. I know that my noble friend the Minister will again want to respond as helpfully as she can to the debate.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that this was a very important amendment and stressed that we feel most strongly about it. Indeed, I have attached my name to it. I should like to say briefly that I think that it is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned that it is a useful power because it would enable swift action to be brought to avoid, for example, a bus station being made inaccessible. I have in mind Oxford Station a few years ago, which was made inaccessible and cost a tremendous amount of money. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, nodding his head in agreement. It was a disaster and such a power would perhaps have been most useful at that time. The power will also be useful for bringing test cases to clarify the law. It would also be a cheap and cost-effective way to develop law; and there is a dearth of this in the disability field.
Baroness Blatch: I have one brief question for the Minister. My understanding is that the Lord Chancellor is already considering the whole issue of bringing class actions before the courts. I just wonder what progress that work has achieved. If the noble and learned Lord were to bring forward an amendment to the law specifying that class actions could be brought by organisations, can the Minister say that that would include the commission?
Lord Addington: Most of what I had intended to say has already been said by other speakers. However, I ask the Government to bear in mind one very simple fact. If we managed to insert such a power in the Bill, we could
1636
end up saving money and not wasting time. Before I add great eloquent words about carrying a large stick but speaking softly, perhaps I may point out that basically that is all we are asking for. We have got to try to create a situation where people know what the law is. It should not be dependent on someone having to go through the heartache and disturbance of finding himself discriminated against and then having to take legal action.
Surely these are very laudable aims and we should do something to bring them about. If the amendment is not acceptable, perhaps the Government can bring something forward at the next stage. Indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, just put forward a suggestion which may well be the answer. I hope that the Minister can give us a positive answer.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: At the outset, I have to emphasise that, while in appearance the amendment seems quite simple and may well save money and lead to some of the other benefits that have been mentioned, it is in fact a very radical and legally complex proposal. In explaining the great difficulties associated with it, I am afraid that I shall have to draw heavily upon the legal advice that I have received. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is no longer in the Chamber, because I believe that he might well be able to support me in what I am saying. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I set out in some detail the legal points which may seem a little arcane in places. In effect, it means that I have to say to my noble friend Lord Ashley that I shall not be able to agree with him as he requested. It is not that I want to dismiss in any way what I think lies behind the proposal; it is just that it is legally not possible.
First, it seems to me that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved. Contrary to what my noble friend said, neither the Commission for Racial Equality nor the Equal Opportunities Commission has any comparable power to that which the amendment seeks to give to the disability rights commission. The reason they do not, and the reason the Bill as drafted gives the DRC no such power, lies in the way in which our courts necessarily—I emphasise the word "necessarily"—approach litigation of the kind arising under Part II and Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the respect which must be given to the right of the individual disabled person to be able to decide when and if he or she wishes litigation to be initiated which concerns him or her personally.
It is fundamental to proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act that a person must: first, establish that he or she is entitled to come before the court or tribunal; secondly, establish by evidence that the actions of the other party damages him or her; and, thirdly, establish that the court or tribunal can give some form of relief to alleviate that damage. By giving the DRC an entitlement to initiate proceedings and so come before the court or tribunal, this amendment addresses only the first of those matters. In order to have any effect it would have to address both of the other requirements.

1637
I do not point that out merely to make a point about defects in the drafting but much more as a prelude to examining the second and third requirements.
In addressing those requirements the starting point is, of course, that the DRC could never itself establish a cause of action under Part II or Part III of the 1995 Act. Quite simply, the DRC is not itself a disabled person—that, I believe, is fairly obvious—and cannot be discriminated against as such. Rather the intention of the amendment is for the DRC to be able to show by evidence that one or more specific disabled persons have been discriminated against and have suffered damage. Then, the DRC will not ask the court or tribunal to award compensation to itself but rather to award compensation or give other relief to those disabled persons. It would not suffice in such a case for the DRC to ask the court to speculate that some unknown disabled person might have suffered discrimination, nor to try to demonstrate by argument rather than evidence that all disabled persons must of necessity have suffered or be about to suffer damage. To establish that such an unlawful act has occurred or is about to occur under Part II or Part III of the 1995 Act, it is a necessity for the court to be satisfied by evidence that a particular disabled person has suffered unlawful discrimination or will suffer it and has been or will be damaged by it.
That brings me to the main point. If the DRC is able to call before the court or tribunal willing evidence from one or more disabled persons who themselves have a cause of action under the 1995 Act, why can it not do the simple thing; namely, provide assistance to that disabled person to bring his or her own case? That is exactly what the provision in Clause 6(1)(a) of the Bill allows the DRC to do. The only case where the act of discrimination could not be brought before the court or tribunal in that perfectly straightforward way is when the disabled person concerned did not himself or herself want to initiate legal proceedings.
We have to ask whether it can really be right for the DRC—the very body which a disabled person can perhaps most expect to give respect to his or her views and dignity—to be in a position to act in such a way. We have to ask ourselves whether it can be right for the DRC to have the power to initiate proceedings which could end up dragging disabled persons unwillingly before courts or tribunals to give evidence which they themselves do not wish to advance and to have unwanted redress forced upon them.
I must add a secondary point. My comments are addressed only to legal proceedings of the kind referred to in the amendment; that is, proceedings which focus on individual redress for wrongs suffered by particular individuals. I indicated at the outset that neither the CRE nor the EOC enjoy any comparable power to that which the amendment gives. But I stress that both those bodies can perfectly well initiate applications to the High Court when they wish to challenge decisions made by any of the bodies amenable to judicial review where the decisions concerned lie within their proper frame of reference. Likewise, this Bill as drafted allows the DRC to initiate applications for judicial review. It is important that I make it clear that the DRC is able to initiate proceedings of that kind.
1638
But, over and above that, the contrast between the nature of applications for judicial review and the nature of the proceedings addressed by the amendment may assist your Lordships in considering the legal points which I have made. Judical review proceeds on affidavit evidence about matters in which the bodies concerned can and do have direct knowledge and the remedies sought can perfectly well—indeed usually do—have a wide application, benefiting a class rather than an individual. No individual disabled person need be involved in a judicial review; in other words, the same objection as exists to the power given by this amendment does not exist and there is no question of dragging any disabled person unwillingly before the court to deal with matters personal to them.
I turn now to the question of the DRC intervening in litigation. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted which prevents the DRC from making an application to any court whose procedures allow such applications to be entertained. That certainly includes appellate courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of this House. The Committee may recall that in the recent consideration of Mr. Pinochet's case Amnesty International and later the Government of Chile made successful applications to be heard. It is usually only at the appellate stage, when issues of fact have been decided, that it is possible to see that a question of principle has arisen so as to make representation to the court by a body such as the DRC appropriate. I repeat that the DRC is fully entitled under the powers it is given in this Bill as drafted to make application to be heard in such circumstances. On this point there is no need for the amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who raised the issue of class actions. This issue is raised in Amendment No. 14 and perhaps we could therefore deal with it when we reach that amendment. My noble friend Lady Gould raised issues that are covered by Clause 6, which allows the DRC to give all the necessary help, financial and otherwise, for bringing cases. If a group of disabled people, rather than a single disabled person, want to bring a case, they can certainly do so as long as they have all suffered the same unlawful discrimination.
I hope that, with that rather long and complicated legal explanation, I have clarified the position. If my noble friend obtains different legal advice between now and Report, perhaps he would let me know.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Before my noble friend sits down, she said that neither the Equal Opportunities Commission nor the Commission for Racial Equality have the powers sought by this amendment. But am I not right in thinking that, on the basis of their long experience, both bodies have recommended that they should have similar powers to those that we are seeking?
Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not think that that is right. Again there is a confusion here with issues which arise under a later clause. I think we can discuss this matter when we reach Amendment No. 14.

1639
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. He may, of course, wish to seek further legal advice between now and Report stage.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, so that it is on the official record, will she confirm that the disability rights commission will be able to fund a disabled person in taking an action under the Disability Discrimination Act?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
Baroness Darcy De Knayth: Perhaps I may ask a question before the noble Lord decides what to do. I am not an expert in this field, but is it not true that the EOC and the CRE can, in very limited circumstances, initiate proceedings in their own name in the case of discriminatory advertisements and of persistent discriminators? I may be wrong.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe that that is the case, but I do not believe that that matter is covered by this amendment. It raises a different set of issues.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am sure that the Committee will agree that my noble friend has done justice to the amendment in taking so much trouble to put forward a very sophisticated and, as she called it, arcane legal argument, as she ought to do. It is clear that her advisers and our advisers differ. Our understanding clearly was that the CRE and the EOC had some of these powers and that they had recommended that these powers should be given in the Bill. We shall find out in the course of the next few weeks before Report who is right. We are taking no bets on it.
My noble friend used some rather far-fetched phrases that I have never heard of when she talked about dragging disabled people before the courts and "unwanted redress". I have never in my life heard the phrase "unwanted redress". Every human being that I know who is hurt or damaged in any way naturally wants redress. What is unwanted redress? What kind of story is the Minister telling us? Is she saying that disabled people by the million say: "No, no, no, we do not want the money, we do not want justice; we want to do nothing". I do not believe it. I believe that disabled people, like anyone else, want fairness and justice. They will get that if the commission has the power to initiate proceedings.
My noble friend said that under the provisions of the Bill the commission will be able to initiate proceedings in certain circumstances. I do not dispute that. We are seeking broader power, that is all.
I find it very difficult to accept my noble friend's general thesis. In terms of legal complexity, she is right. We shall consult our lawyers—whom we do not pay, by the way—and she can consult hers and before Report we shall try to get all these issues clarified. Meanwhile, I am grateful to her for the trouble she has taken. However, I reiterate my point that this is a crucially
1640
important amendment for which we have fought strongly. Nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall have the power to set up regional offices as it deems necessary in pursuance of its duties under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to establish regional offices for the commission. A few moments ago my noble friend said that she was not sure where the headquarters would be. That is understandable. However, I think it is wrong to claim—as this Bill does—that it is enough for the commission to be able to decide the matter of regional branches after it is established. I believe that funding is essential here. This issue is so important that it must be decided by Parliament; otherwise, the money will simply not be available.
It is also wrong to assume that everything can be done by letter, fax or telephone. Clearly in some circumstances there is no substitute for personal contact. This is even more the case as regards disabled people than as regards any other group of people. We simply must enable disabled people to obtain the advice, guidance, or any other help they need from the commission in ways that suit them. This measure is also relevant to businesses, especially small businesses.
It is unrealistic to assume that disabled people can go trotting off to London when they need face to face contact with the commission. The mind boggles at the thought of the stress, inconvenience, frustration, annoyance and distress that would be suffered by disabled people struggling to get to London when what they need is to talk directly to a near by informed person.
I recognise that the commission may not be based in London, the Midlands or the North. However, one location will be inadequate. As my noble friend has said, there will be offices in Scotland and in Wales, but what we really need is a regional and local presence to supplement the national one. That is what this amendment seeks. I hope very much that we shall obtain that provision because disabled people, local employers and service providers need a regional or local point of contact staffed by people who know the characteristics of the local environment. Some severely disabled people may need home visits and face to face contact. I believe they should have that. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I believe it has already been announced that it is proposed the commission should have separate offices in Scotland and Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that. There may well be a case for regional offices in England, perhaps in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, would probably have something to say about that. It may also be found necessary to establish a regional office or two within Scotland because of the great distances involved in Scotland and

1641
the wide spread of population. Is it possible for that to be done under the Bill, both in England and in Scotland? If so, would the commission take the decisions with regard to those offices?
It is not widely known that health in Scotland is a completely devolved subject and has been for at least 40 years. I can vouch for that because I was a junior Minister in the Scottish Office 36 years ago. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland early in the 1970s I was responsible for health in Scotland. The Department of Health has no functions in Scotland, although of course it is the lead department and leads on international matters for the UK.
There are two other subjects that have great relevance to disabled people. The departments which deal with those subjects are Great Britain departments and therefore they cover both England and Wales. Those subjects are employment and social security. Those departments have local offices spread throughout Scotland as well as throughout England. I should, of course, mention education which is now combined with employment as one department. That department does not have functions in Scotland because again education has been completely devolved to Scotland for many years, as is the case with health. The proposed office of the commission in Scotland will therefore need to establish good communications with the Scottish presences of these other departments. I, too, would be glad to hear what the Government have in mind concerning the setting up of offices in different parts of Great Britain.
Lord Rix: In supporting this amendment, to which my name is added, I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, touched on the point that providing regional offices for the disability rights commission would offer great benefits to the business community. I stress that the benefit would be mutual both to service providers and to people with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, stressed the difficulties that people with disabilities experience when travelling to London and the cost of telephone calls to London etcetera. I cannot stress enough the importance for people with learning disabilities of establishing regional offices.
As is mentioned in one of my amendments to Schedule 1, I believe there must be scope for reviewing the constitution of the commission so that the operation of regional offices, or indeed the, option of commissioners overseeing regions, can be formally investigated.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I support this amendment. On Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend the Minister indicated—I hope I have interpreted this correctly—that rather than establishing regional offices at this stage consideration might be given to setting up regional seminars and workshops and to commission staff travelling from one site to another. What worries me about that comment is that such provision might be fine once contact has been made, but it is the initial contact that disabled people need to be
1642
able to make. They need to know where to go. The place they must go to needs to be accessible. The peripatetic nature of the activities that are proposed will not assist those people who may be unaware that such activity is taking place. I believe that nothing can replace face to face contact and talking through the issues. One cannot do that in the same way in a letter or on the telephone. Even in these days of new technology I do not think one can do that satisfactorily by e-mail. Disabled people need to receive a sympathetic hearing in a sympathetic setting. Therefore I believe it is absolutely essential that regional offices are established.
Baroness Blatch: I have studied the Bill to ascertain the basis for establishing regional offices in Scotland and Wales. I note also that my noble friend Lord Mackay when speaking at Second Reading posed a number of questions in relation to Scotland. He asked whether a reserved power or a devolved power was involved and the degree to which the commission would be accountable to the Scottish Parliament, who would appoint the Scottish members of the commission and so forth. I may be missing something but I did not notice any answers to those questions in the wind-up speech. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has written to my noble friend between Second Reading and today's proceedings and I have not seen the letter. However, it would be helpful to be given answers to those questions. I should like to know the basis on which the regional offices will be established.
If there are powers to establish regional offices in Wales and Scotland, can I assume from that that the commission would have the freedom and the powers to set up regional offices anywhere else in the United Kingdom where it wished to do so? That, of course, raises the thorny question of finance and does not totally tie up with the response the noble Baroness gave to an earlier amendment when she said that she would respond in detail to this issue when responding to this amendment.
Whether the commission sets up outposts around the country, or simply puts some of its work out using the organisations that already exist on the network of organisations concerned with services to disabled people, either way, it will need funding. I come back to the point about the £4 million which the CRE has to fund out-posting of its work, albeit the way in which it started off is slightly different. Nevertheless, if there is to be a delivery of some of these services at a local level, it will need to be funded. That brings us back to the basic question.
There are two issues: first, the particular specific Scottish dimension; and, secondly, if the power is in the Bill, where is it—and does that power subsume the right of the commission to set-up regional and/or area offices anywhere it wishes throughout the United Kingdom?
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I support this proposal. I am surprised that when noble Lords talk about regions they seem to run out of examples after Wales and Scotland, and maybe Manchester. There are other regions in this kingdom—and if you lived in Norwich, you would not be very grateful for a regional office in Manchester.

1643
Part of the commission's duties relates to the provision of advice for employers, and certainly one of the elements in the legislation relating to regional development authorities concerns social exclusion—the addressing of social regeneration in the regions. Would it not be a good thing if there was a determined effort from the very beginning to ensure that the interests and concerns of disabled people were fully on the agenda in regional developmental authorities?
As the noble Baroness has just said, it is clearly a matter of money. One has to look and ask what will be the most effective deployment of the undoubted limited resources which will be available to pursue this work. We already have plenty of regional structures which are charged with policies relating to social regeneration. Social exclusion is part of their brief, and therefore there is a ready-made vehicle for the intentions of this amendment.
Earl Russell: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said about the costs of travel to other parts of the country. Recently I was listening to a member of a working group from the north of England who was complaining that it cost him £150 a time to attend meetings of the group. This is a very considerable sum of money. In the context of the Bill, we are discussing the concept of equality. When you hear people expressing concerns about equality, it is increasingly often a concern for equality between London and the rest of the British Isles. If you look at the situation from north of the Trent or from west of the Tamar, you tend to see London as an over-privileged place. It does not of course seem that way to me, but then "it wouldn't, would it?".
I apologise if my next point was covered in the debate on Amendment No. 1, from which I was unavoidably absent. I think I can script in my sleep the ministerial reply to an amendment of this kind: "This amendment is unnecessary. The Government have the power to do this already. Why is this brought before the House?" On the hypothesis that that is the reply we are likely to get, I would ask the noble Lord this question: when the funding level for the commission was reached, was it intended to be sufficient to fund the setting up of regional offices? If so, on what scale?
Lord Morris of Manchester: I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Burlison, for informing me that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had suggested that I might wish to comment on the proposal that there could be a regional centre in Manchester. I hope very much that there will be. I remind the Committee that the head office of the Equal Opportunities Commission was in Manchester and, by common consent, succeeded extremely well there in its important work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind this suggestion when he comes to reply.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, welcome this amendment. I make no apologies whatever for having raised the subject under Amendment No. 1. It has a bearing on the necessary funding for the commission, and the funding of the commission has a bearing on the number of offices it will have.
The noble Baroness has said that there will be an office in Scotland, which is a very large place. I think that there will need to be more than one office, purely to do away with the additional time and costs incurred in travel. Wales could also need more than one office. I understand that if you live in North Wales and need to go down to Cardiff, you have to leave the Principality and go via England, which is quicker and easier. There may well need to be two offices in Wales.
The right reverent Prelate mentioned having an office in Norwich. From some parts of the country it is extremely difficult to get to Norwich. It is also difficult to get to Exeter, Leeds, Newcastle and all sorts of places. In order for the commission to do its job properly, it is absolutely essential that it does not operate from one place; it must have several different offices. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us that the commission will have several offices, and possibly give us an indication of the number. The Government have avoided answering this question; now is the time when an answer would be very helpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have had a good debate on the issue of regional offices, both here and in the discussion on Amendment No. 1. I refer your Lordships to the consideration of the disability rights task force which gave this matter its full consideration and concluded that regional offices did not necessarily offer the best way forward for making services to disabled people as accessible as possible. Nor did they offer best value for money. The task force felt that much in the way of service delivery might be achieved through alternative methods. For example, as my noble friend Lady Gould suggested, the commission could conduct regional seminars or workshops.
As to the suggestion that disabled people might be required to travel to the national office of the commission, one would rather put it the other way round; equally, the commission staff could travel to the client rather than the person being required to come to them.
Any of us who have been involved in national organisations which have regional structures, will know from experience that very often regional offices are not at all accessible, particularly in large regions. Nor must we forget the use that could be made of modern technological methods, which for some disabled people could mean accessing the commission from home.
Having said that, the commission will be free to establish regional offices if it decides in the light of experience that it is appropriate. It is that experience which will be invaluable in deciding not only whether to have regional offices but where they might be located and what resources they should have.

1645
In relation to funding, I must reject any notion that not providing immediately for regional offices can simply be presented as a cost-saving exercise. Value for money is a two sided equation and one that has to be balanced—
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Would I be correct in construing what the Minister has just said as an admission that the budget is not sufficient to cover the costs of regional offices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, I do not think the noble Earl can construe that at all. I am talking about the priorities which the commission will have to set for the various tasks that it is being called upon to play. Like any organisation, it has to balance those priorities. In the light of experience it will be better able to make that kind of judgment.
A number of questions were asked about the potential headquarters of the commission. I remind the Committee that at the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lady Blackstone said that the commission will be established with an office in England and also one in Wales and one in Scotland. As regards the office to be placed in England, we are clearly at a very early stage. We cannot be in a position to know where the office will be located.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the impact of devolution. Equal opportunities are a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The commission will cover Great Britain and the matter will not be devolved to Scotland and Wales post-devolution. Provision has been made by government agreement for one commissioner to be appointed in consultation with Scottish Ministers and one in consultation with the First Secretary for Wales on behalf of the Welsh Assembly. The annual reports of the commission will be provided to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. As I have already said, an office of the commission will be located in both Wales and Scotland.
I was asked about the performance and operation of the offices in relation to racial equality councils. It is worth making the point that these are independent organisations that work locally to support local networks. The distinction with disability is that those networks in relation to disabled people are already in place. The role for the disability rights commission is to work with those networks that are in place and not to replace them.
Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by re-emphasising that the Bill does not constrain the commission in this area. It allows the commission to establish regional offices but I believe that these decisions are best made in the light of experience and in the judgment of the commission.
Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister name some of the organisations to which he is referring when he talks about the network of organisations concerned with disability in local communities? My experience is that organisations such as Scope and MENCAP rely almost entirely on voluntary fundraising, whether it be local
1646
fundraising or national fundraising. That is different from the funding of the Commission for Racial Equality at local level, which receives statutory funding both from national government and local government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In contrast to the position in relation to racial equality issues at the start, we are fortunately blessed with many effective local groups for disabled people. Therefore, an important role for the new commission will be to work with those networks. Such networks were not in place in relation to racial equality issues.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister is missing my point. We are now placing on the commission statutory obligations. If the commission determines to use those organisations which rely at the moment on voluntary contributions, it will, just as the racial equality organisations do, expect to receive statutory funding to meet those statutory obligations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Many of those local organisations are, in one way or another, in receipt of grants. If the disability rights commission is to be effective, it will need to have in place an effective network in order to communicate with these local groups. What I dispute with the noble Baroness is the case that, necessarily, one needs regional offices to assist that process. That decision is much better taken by the commission when it has had time to establish itself.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may correct the impression that the majority of MENCAP's local societies, of which there are more than 400 in this country, certainly receive government funding. They may do indirectly—occasionally for projects and there is some European funding—but as a weekly, monthly or annual income, that is certainly not so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly did not mean to convey the impression that the noble Lord picked up. I was simply making the point that grants and resources from statutory organisations are available to many groups. I would certainly wish to acknowledge the work that many groups do without statutory support. The substantive issue is the role of the commission in ensuring an effective network with these groups and with disabled people locally. The question of whether regional offices can help that process is best left to the commission. It has that power to establish those offices. I think it best if we leave it to the commission to make those decisions.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make one final point. I think I speak on behalf of MENCAP even though I am now president and not chairman, when I say that if the Government felt so minded as to fund our MENCAP family adviser service in the regions—it will also cover Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—so that we were able to act as, as it

1647
were, a conduit for the disability rights commission, I am sure that we would be delighted to receive the money.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I take note of the noble Lord's point but there is no commitment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It has been an excellent debate. However, I now find that we are beginning to hurl recommendations of the task force at each other. The score now is two to the Government and one to us. I was able to quote the task force against my noble friend on one occasion. But now it is two to one against us so I think we will call it a draw and not use the task force to support our argument, as we may lose it anyhow.
My noble friend managed to convey some criticism of regional organisations. I accept that there can be things wrong with regions but it is not simply a matter of regional organisations. In these amendments, I was thinking of local organisations as well. The argument that regions cannot be brilliant is not necessarily a good one.
I wish to turn to the argument about networks. My noble friend seems to think that the commission will be able to work with what he calls a network of voluntary organisations—I am sure it can—but the functions are entirely different. What the commission will be doing is very different from what MENCAP and the RNIB are doing. But if he wants them to work together, surely a network can work better with a network. Regional and local organisations will be better able to work with the network of voluntary organisations to which he referred.
We have covered this issue very well in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for his words. We may return to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to focus briefly on the question of access to polling stations, which was mentioned briefly at Second Reading on 17th December, when regrettably I could not be present. I have no wish to delay the progress of the Committee or take away from the general thrust of the amendments. I therefore raise the matter at this point in order to clarify the position.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, envisaged (at col. 1468) that commissioners might have to decide whether right of access to polling booths should be enforced. He later said that,
"nobody would regard it as a right when there is the perfectly good alternative of postal voting".
The Minister replied:
"The Government entirely accept that that is a perfectly good alternative"—[Official Report, 17/12/98; col. 1494.]
1648
Yes, it is fine as an alternative—that is, if there is a choice—but it is not acceptable as the only available voting method for a person with a disability. It is segregation on what is a very important day for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, knew that I should raise this matter. He knows that we disagree about it. He also knows how much I appreciate all that he has accomplished for himself and for disabled people in general, and that he has had a good many more years' experience of living with a disability than I have. What we do agree on is that the commissioners should not have to spend time sorting this matter out. I hope that that will be because we shall move swiftly towards ensuring that polling stations can easily accommodate people with physical, sensory and learning difficulties. The proposal would also accommodate people with arthritis, or those with pushchairs etc. It would apply to the general public.
Many disabled people feel very strongly that they should have the opportunity to vote in person, along with the rest of the community. Scope and RADAR have long campaigned for access to polling stations, and successive governments have been supportive.
I wish to make two main points, the first on polling stations and the second on the postal vote. The vast majority of polling stations are in public buildings—schools, libraries and community centres—which should be accessible to everyone all the year round, not merely on election day. Scope's latest survey, taken in 1997, of over 1,200 polling stations indicated that 92 per cent. were in public buildings.
Postal voters must send off the envelope some days before the election date to be certain of its arrival. Yet politicians campaign right up to the last moment. I do not need to tell your Lordships, who unlike me have parties, that people sometimes take voting decisions extremely late in the day. Noble Lords are aware of how elections have been lost and won during the final days of a campaign. The postal vote may suit those who are very sure in their choice, but it should not be the only method of voting instead of allowing people the choice of taking part with everyone else on the day.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a strong and encouraging message to electors with disabilities, many of whom feel very strongly about this issue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, kindly gave me notice that she intended to raise this issue as she was unable to be present at Second Reading. I gave this as an example of what might be claimed as a right, but said that I hoped it could be settled locally without it being a matter that the commission had to look into in great depth. There are alternative arrangements. I have always voted by post. At various times over the past 54 years I have been in a wheelchair or on crutches and have decided, even when I was an MP voting in my own constituency where my home is, that the sensible thing was for me to apply well beforehand and be registered as a postal voter.
My concern since then, in the other place and as the Member of the Cabinet responsible for these matters, was to attempt to enable as many people as possible to

1649
know about the need to register long beforehand if they were going to have difficulties. I entirely understand some people's preference for being there in person. However, I hope that this matter will not take up much of the commission's time and the money which it is so difficult to produce, as there are so many important areas where discrimination needs to be removed.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. Local authorities receive small grants in order to enable them to make polling stations accessible. The question is whether they ever use those grants. The Scope survey that was referred to indicated that only 6 per cent. of polling stations are fully accessible. That is absolutely disgraceful considering that money is available.
Other matters need to be mentioned which do not cost anything. For instance, within a polling station the polling booth is often too high for wheelchair users. Also, the ballot box is often placed on a table, presumably so that able-bodied people will not have to bend down, but it does not help anyone who is in a wheelchair and cannot reach it.
On the question of the postal vote, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is not an alternative; it should be an available option. The right to vote in person is fundamental. The postal vote is complex. There is a problem over timing and many people find out about it much too late. In addition, an examination is needed of the electoral registration process itself, which is complicated. If political parties want people to be involved in the political process, they should examine the way in which they communicate their policies.
A Home Office committee is examining various aspects of the electoral process. I hope that the commission will be able to ensure that when its work is complete and legislation is passed, which will ultimately happen, all these points are taken into account in that legislation.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. The entitlement to vote is at the heart of our democracy. At the same time I wish to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that I do not believe this matter need take up the time of the commission.
It is the case that some disabled people feel effectively almost prevented from exercising their right to vote as they are unable to gain access to a polling station. The Government are committed to helping disabled people to exercise their right to vote and to do so in person if that is their choice. It is important that we should try to make that choice available to as many people as possible. Polling stations are public facilities. They are covered by the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The decision as to which building to select for a polling station is a matter for the relevant local authority. However, the Home Office provides guidance to returning officers on issues that they ought to consider when making that decision and suggesting how access to a polling station might be assessed.
1650
I confirm the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gould. The Home Office makes substantial grants available to returning officers to help them provide auxiliary aids and services in the form of temporary ramps and accessible polling booths. Further consolidated and enhanced guidance, including advice on national access standards, will be issued to all returning officers shortly. I very much hope that they will take that guidance on board, and indeed my noble friend's remarks.
Noble Lords may also be aware that the Government's working party on electoral procedures has recommended to the Home Secretary the need to introduce legislation proposing changes to provide for the introduction of polling aids for disabled people to assist voting in person at polling stations. The working party will continue to consider the question of access for disabled people to electoral services of all kinds, including the possibility of introducing in the future pilot schemes to test the effect for all electors of alternative electoral procedures. These pilots may include: voting anywhere in an electoral area; mobile polling; early voting; all-postal ballots; and electronic voting. All of those may well have considerable benefits for those electors who are disabled and everyone else.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Formal investigations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.7:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("decide to").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to advocate the deletion of "decide to". In doing so I hope that I may qualify for a plain English award. My argument is that those words are otiose. If the commission decides to conduct a formal investigation it does not need to decide to do so; it will do it. Therefore, these words are superfluous. I hope that parliamentary counsel will allow the Minister also to agree that they are superfluous. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Parliamentary counsel has not allowed or advised me to say that this amendment can be accepted. However, I am content to take the amendment away to see whether we can accommodate the suggestion of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Non-discrimination notices]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No.8 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 inclusive.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.8:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("provisions") in line 2 on page 3 and insert ("The notice may include").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and speak also to Amendment No.12. I leave others to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. As drafted, the clause provides that certain items may be included

1651
in regulations from the Secretary of State on the content of non-discrimination notices. My amendments aim to bring those items that may be included into the Bill rather than leave them to secondary legislation. The Bill sets out those matters in any case, but leaves them to secondary legislation. Presumably, it is accepted by the Government, if I read it correctly, that these are valid items for inclusion in a non-discrimination notice. In that case, why not include them in the Bill? If one looks at sub-section (4) one sees:

"(a) to take steps with a view to avoiding the commission by [the individual] of unlawful acts and to inform the Commission that he has taken such steps;

(b) to inform the Commission of any other steps which he needs to take in order to comply with the notice …

(c) to give the Commission any other information for the purpose of verifying that the notice has been complied with; and

(d) to take steps with a view to making available to other persons any information about the notice or the things [required] to be done".

That is pretty comprehensive and allows almost anything to do with the effective enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. Their purpose is to move the powers that the Secretary of State may give to the commission directly onto the statute rather than by regulation which is the current intention of the Bill. We have rehearsed these arguments in the context of a different amendment. I do not know whether we are going over similar ground. I believe that the value of this commission will be considerably enhanced if it has statutory powers to prescribe changes. This is particularly the case if in addition a timetable is prescribed.
The unfortunate experience of other commissions illustrates this difficulty. A non-discrimination notice issued by the CRE or the EOC cannot prescribe particular changes in practice although both commissions have asked for this power. It may well be that our advisers have reached different conclusions on this matter. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend if that is the case. If both of these established commissions have asked for this power it is a very significant argument in favour of giving it to this commission. It is notable that the Fair Employment Commission uses these powers to co-operate with business. I emphasise the co-operative aspect.
These powers will be especially important as structural barriers place disabled people at a very big disadvantage. It would be far more effective if the commission specified that a service provider must instal a ramp or, say, an induction loop rather than merely promote general non-discriminatory attitudes within an organisation. Business will find it very helpful if the commission has the power to tell it exactly what should be done to avoid discrimination and to work within the
1652
law rather than to wait for a court decision. Given the value of this power to all interested parties it would be very helpful if the Minister could accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I agree that these amendments are tremendously important, and I agree with all that the noble Lord has said.
Lord Addington: When it comes to action to help avoid discrimination and to help the disabled this amendment should already have been included in the Bill. It gives power to tell organisations what they should do. This is not guidance and people should not have to struggle with it. If something like this can be included in the Bill we can carry out the age-old task in this House of ensuring that the lawyers do not have another case. This is what we should be about here. If we can do something along these lines it should be done. It may well be that the noble Lord's amendment is not perfect, but I believe I know him well enough by now to appreciate that if he is told that there is a better form of words he will readily accept them. We should put something in the Bill and become proactive. If we merely say, "Thou shalt not", it will take a very long time to establish what thou shalt do. Let us find the most direct and positive way forward in the hope that we can discover what can be done, and do it quickly.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley. In the consultation process on the establishment of a disability rights commission the Association of Disabled Professionals made the following comment about regulatory powers:
"We think that the principal Act setting up the DRC should be as flexible as possible to allow changes in the future to be made easily in the light of experience. We suggest that this could best be achieved by means of powers in the principal Act to make and amend regulations covering all the various issues that are as yet not entirely clear or on which future changes may be desirable".
Clearly, because they are so precisely worded, the reason for placing these important—indeed essential—features of non-discrimination notices in regulation-making powers cannot be to provide this flexibility. Why are these important provisions left to the whim of the Secretary of State? Why are they not covered by the constructively decisive "shall" of subsection (2) rather than the worryingly woolly "may" of subsection (3)? It seems to me to be of the first importance to have these provisions in non-discrimination notices. Without them the value of a non-discrimination notice would be less and the work of the commission made more arduous and costly.
If, then, these provisions are required, as the careful drafters of this Bill appear to concede they are in so precisely wording them and calling for them to be included, why should they have to await the Secretary of State's decision on other possible requirements that could be included in non-discrimination notices? It is crucially important to establish time limits by which someone served with a non-discrimination notice is required to act. Without any such time limits one can foresee procrastinators having the time of their lives emasculating the powers of the commission and

1653
devaluing the purpose of a non-discrimination notice. Such procrastination could easily add unnecessarily to the costs of the commission.
To some extent I can understand why the setting of times within which the requirements of a non-discrimination notice have to be met has been left to regulations. Arguments about legislative flexibility apply here. Not all the requirements have been set down and what may be reasonable time limits for different requirements have not yet been determined. However, I cannot possibly understand why this crucially important issue of time limits has been left so vaguely within the powers of the Secretary of State. He or she may make regulations which may specify the time within which some requirement must be met. It is merely a "may" and another "may". Could anything be more unsatisfactorily vague?
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has touched a chord with us all with his invocation of the phrase "a worryingly woolly may". But that, like all our views here, is a parliamentary view. If we consider the issue from the other side of the net, the word "may" is all too delightfully precise. The purpose of parliamentary legislation is to tie the hands of the Executive. The purpose of the Executive, regardless of party, is to untie its hands. So as soon as the word "may" appears in a statute, the Executive has untied its hands to that extent. That is why I say that from that point of view it is all too delightfully precise.
I am sure the Minister will reply that all these amendments are unnecessary. Executives love saying that amendments are unnecessary. The Minister will point to the word "may" and say that the whole thing can be done by regulation. Yes, exactly. But the disadvantage of doing something by regulation is that it cannot be amended. In extreme circumstances it can be voted down, but it cannot be amended, and voting down is an extremely blunt instrument. So the wealth of experience in this Chamber—it is very considerable—cannot be brought to bear on the wording of a regulation. The Executive may do whatever it likes.
The Executive reply—I have heard it so many times that I could script it in my sleep—will be that it gives flexibility, that it makes the provision easier to change if it finds that it has made a mistake. On that argument it is perfectly correct. But the Executive's flexibility is our inflexibility. Because the Executive can change when it finds it has made a mistake, we can do nothing when we find there is a mistake.
That seems a slightly one-sided arrangement. I understand why it commends itself to Ministers, but is that a good reason why it should commend itself to the rest of us?
Baroness Blackstone: I welcome the amendments as they demonstrate agreement between us that the arguments for extending the scope of non-discrimination notices issued by the disability rights commission are strong. I think on that there can be no disagreement
1654
between us. Our differences arise on whether the detail of how that might be best achieved should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations.
The Bill makes provision for the disability rights commission to issue a non-discrimination notice when it becomes satisfied in the course of a formal investigation that a person is committing, or has committed, an act of unlawful discrimination. The notice allows the commission to state that it has found the person concerned to have committed, or to be committing, an act of unlawful discrimination and requires the person to stop discriminating and acting the same way in future. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, where the commission has found a person to be discriminating, it should be able to issue a notice to that person which would be enforceable requiring him to stop discriminating. That underlies what all noble Lords who spoke in the debate said.
The purpose of the amendments is to specify on the face of the Bill the ability of the disability rights commission, in addition, to prescribe in a non-discrimination notice particular changes in practice that it considers are required to avoid unlawful acts. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Ashley said. This proposal emanates from the reviews by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality of their establishing legislation. In that context, perhaps I should say that I may have misled my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester earlier. The CRE and the EOC have asked in their review to be able to initiate proceedings. But that raises the complicated legal issues which I mentioned earlier.
This proposal was considered by the disability rights task force. The task force was keen to ensure that the non-discrimination stage of the formal investigation process should be made as effective as possible. There was concern that prescription in all the areas that the amendments would cover may not be the best way forward. In particular there were concerns that the proposal may allow the disability rights commission to impose a particular way of addressing an issue which has led to discrimination when there might be other ways of addressing them than those prescribed. The Disability Discrimination Act is relatively new and more complex than other anti-discrimination legislation. There is no well-established body of accepted practice upon which the disability rights commission could draw in framing the requirements on employers and service providers. There was concern, too, that a very high level of understanding as to the way businesses operate is required in order to determine exactly what might be practical in a particular situation. The task force recommended that the issue should be considered in the light of the outcome of the reviews of the existing equality commissions.
The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations extending the scope of a non-discrimination notice and to make related provisions. I noted what the noble Earl said on that, but I wish to reassure him that, were the Government not to accept the amendment, regulations would be made. The regulation-making power would allow a degree of flexibility so as to ensure that a consistent approach is

1655
taken for each equality commission where this is appropriate and allow the detail of the administrative arrangements to be specified and modified in the light of experience. However, in the light of the strong views expressed today I should be happy to consider the issue again at Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of the promise that the Minister will consider the issue between now and Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.9 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Agreements in lieu of enforcement action]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.13:
Page 3, line 34, at beginning insert ("to suspend or").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to tease out whether an agreement of the kind referred to is intended always to replace an investigation. As soon as an agreement has been entered into does a case fall? Alternatively, in some circumstances the commission might enter into an agreement, having suspended the investigation but with the proviso that it might return to the investigation. It appears that once an agreement has been entered into the only action is recourse to the court if the terms of the agreement are not met. If the commission had the power to return to an investigation, that might provide another tool to its armoury.
It is possible that some people might object to the measure in that it might lead to a further delay and a court action, but it would provide another course of action for the commission. My proposal to insert the words "to suspend or" will reinforce the commission's armoury in cases where notice has been given and an unsatisfactory attempt at suspension has been applied. It will enable a case to be kept out of court for as long as possible; in other words, living up to my constant theme of using recourse to the court as a last resort. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Clause 5 is an unusual provision. I do not remember seeing anything like it previously. I believe that it will be difficult to administer. Instead of coming to the rescue of people whose disability rights have been infringed, there may be a compromise agreement. That is most unusual. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is commendable because it enables the commission either to suspend the investigation or to take no further steps in investigating the unlawful acts.
We must be very careful about granting such an unusual power to the commission. I believe that my noble friend's amendment gives a desirable flexibility.
Baroness Darcy De Knayth: I support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can set noble Lords' concerns at rest. The amendment seeks to allow a formal investigation to be stopped if the
1656
disability rights commission and a person being investigated agree to enter into a written agreement. It may be helpful if I briefly explain the background to this provision and how it is intended that it should operate.
If the disability rights commission has reason to believe that a person has committed or is committing an unlawful act and decides to conduct an investigation, Clause 5 gives it the power to stop the investigation and enter into a written agreement with that person. By entering into a written agreement, the person whose actions were under investigation will agree to abide by the requirements set out in the statutory agreement. These requirements must be within the scope of those which could be specified in a non-discrimination notice.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have both made use of written agreements informally and consider them a valuable tool in the formal investigation process. Indeed, there are a number of advantages to this approach. In contrast to non-discrimination notices, they could be arrived at relatively quickly; they are likely to be less confrontational than non-discrimination notices and more effective in encouraging employers and service providers to tackle discrimination in a positive manner; and they could limit the need for lengthy and expensive formal investigations. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there will be no requirement to enter into a written agreement—it will be voluntary for both parties.
I noted with interest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the potential compromise character of those agreements. I would prefer to write to him about that.
Compliance with a written agreement would be enforceable by the commission through the courts. However, it is open to the parties to agree, when deciding the terms of a written agreement, that a breach of the agreement should result in the formal investigation being re-opened. This is one of a range of possible steps allowed by the provision as drafted. Specifying that a formal investigation should be suspended as one of the alternatives neither adds nor subtracts anything and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister rightly said that entering into an agreement is a voluntary activity on the part of both parties. However, a sword of Damocles hangs over the party being taken to task by the commission because if he does not enter into an agreement the investigation proceeds. I wished to put in place a degree of flexibility and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his support. I propose that where there is an attempt to conform, and for one reason or another either wittingly or unwittingly it does not conform, the investigation can be suspended but if

1657
necessary proceeded with at a later stage. I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that all that I want from my amendment is subsumed and assumed in the Bill, or that my amendment is not necessary, in which case I would disagree with him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that I made it clear that it is open to the parties when deciding the terms of a written agreement that a breach should result in a formal investigation being re-opened. That seemed to meet the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: If once an agreement has been entered into voluntarily by both parties the only action which can be taken is to the court if the terms of the agreement are not met. My argument for allowing a suspension to be one more tool in the armoury of the commission is to postpone going to court by reinstating the investigation. The agreement could then be modified and re-agreed, which would keep the case out of court, because the breach may have been the result of a misunderstanding. My amendment allows a little more flexibility.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The provision as drafted allows a range of possible steps to be agreed, including simple suspension. That would allow the revival of a formal investigation, but it would also allow the investigation to be brought to an end. Specifying one of the various alternatives neither adds to nor subtracts from the clause.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to read more carefully what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have not given notice, but I wish to raise a short, general point. I am very much afraid that the clause will give rise to considerable difficulties. I believe that it will be open to anyone who feels aggrieved to take the matter to court—it would have to be to the High Court—in order to have the application of the clause put right or to seek an injunction for the annulment of any unsatisfactory agreement.
I do not expect an answer from the Minister today, but I would ask him to bear the matter in mind. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will reconsider the clause. I believe that it will give rise to litigation and to practical difficulties, and will occasionally result in injustice, the rectification of which will be delayed for some months. It is a difficult matter and I hope that the Government will give it careful thought.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As he requested, we shall consider the points he raised alongside the earlier point in relation to the character of the agreement.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Assistance in relation to proceedings]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No.14:
Page 4, line 27, after ("individual") insert ("or organisation representing groups of individuals").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak briefly also to Amendments Nos.16 and 17.
A number of references have been made this afternoon to class actions, but I hazard a guess that this amendment may not be strictly appropriate until the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's Department's investigation into their feasibility. Nevertheless, it is important to look towards the introduction of group representation under the Disability Discrimination Act because it may prove to be particularly effective in supporting groups of excluded, vulnerable people who are lacking individual support. It is evident that there will be circumstances in which the commission would wish to bring class actions to protect against institutional discrimination and that should be made clear on the face of the Bill.
In relation to Amendment No. 16, the Government rightly recognise that the commission will need to provide assistance to individuals in relation to proceedings on the grounds that the applicants may be unable to deal with their cases unaided. It is an important measure in the Bill and will ensure that people with learning disabilities are given practical help and support to redress their grievances under the law—something which many other people take for granted.
I should like to draw one rather obvious point to the Committee's attention: that is, that it is highly unlikely that a person with a learning disability will approach the commission independently for help in relation to proceedings. That means that a supporter, a relative or carer may be involved very early on and continue to be involved right through the person's experience with the commission—assisting in new situations, helping the individual to handle detailed documents or helping the individual to communicate effectively. For that reason I wish to add to the list of forms of assistance that the commission may provide. I believe that support, including financial support, should be provided or arranged for an applicant's relatives or carers because those people may be put to a lot of time and effort supporting the person who has been discriminated against. Amendment No. 16 clearly covers that point.
Finally, Amendment No. 17 concerns a minor point, but one that may have a bearing on assistance available to individuals in relation to proceedings. If the commission itself cannot provide assistance which it deems appropriate, then it ought to be able to arrange for that assistance to be provided by somebody else. The focus here should be on what helps the individual, not on forcing the commission to be an expert on providing support for every eventuality. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Here we are trying to protect people who are essentially vulnerable. I am thinking not only of those who are represented by MENCAP—perhaps I may say in passing, as the father

1659
of a daughter who is severely handicapped both physically and mentally, that the expression "learning disabilities" is an unfortunate, limited and unrealistic one—but of any organisation which can help the person or the group of people involved. They should have the opportunity of representing disabled people under Clause 6.
MENCAP is one of our largest charities, but there are many others; for instance, the British Legion. I am sure the Committee will agree that nearly every human ailment now has a charity or pressure group to represent and support it. It would be most unfortunate if, in the administration of this Bill, those charities and pressure groups were not given the opportunity of helping vulnerable people.
Lord Addington: I too support this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has brought forward the reality of the situation; that is, that support staff will be involved with any action under the Bill. That must be recognised and brought within the scope of the Bill.
There will always be pressure groups helping the vulnerable in the field of disability. They may not always have been legally recognised, but we all knew that they were there. Indeed, many such organisations will have helped to draw up these amendments. That is the reality and I suggest that by squaring up to that reality and accepting these amendments we will be doing ourselves a great favour.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I wish to speak briefly, though strongly in support of Amendment No. 14. The disability rights commission represents a huge step forward for people with disabilities, their support organisations and families. It is vital that we make it work as well as we can. That means making it as relevant and accessible as possible to as many people as possible. For many people access to the functions of the commission will be dependent on whether or not support can be provided to their relatives, carers or an organisation in the form of expenses, access to papers and extra time. I hope that the Government will be able to accept these amendments.
Earl Russell: As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 14 recognises the reality of the situation. When we were discussing the Human Rights Bill we came to exactly the same point of issue. The Minister may remember—if not, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, certainly will—that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill raised exactly the same point about the definition of "victim" in the Human Rights Bill. So we are faced here with the same failure to make a good design, which we welcome, effective and fully complete on exactly the same point in both Bills.
People outside, even if not people here, are bound to ask whether that is a coincidence. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they may risk giving the impression which I am sure they do not intend that their
1660
sympathy with campaigning organisations is a little less than total. I am sure that they do not want to do that so perhaps they will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise simply to reiterate my question raised on an earlier amendment which was deferred till now: that is, my understanding is that the Lord Chancellor is working on this issue. If class actions were to be agreed and the law modified, would it be intended to extend the power to the commission just as it would presumably apply to other organisations such as the EOC and CRE?
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his amendment and add to the point he has already made on behalf of those who suffer from learning disabilities. These amendments are extremely important, especially Amendment No. 16, for those who suffer from problems of mental ill health. Everything that the noble Lord said in relation to those with learning difficulties applies a fortiori to this other group and therefore I support Amendment No. 14.
Lord Swinfen: My name is to this group of amendments and obviously I want to support them. Civil rights can only be individual rights, but sometimes it needs groups of people to support individuals in their effort to gain and keep those rights. These amendments will help that. It may be an advance in the law towards class actions. It is possible that some would consider that premature but sometimes we have to take the first step. This is possibly that necessary first step. We should put something of this kind into the Bill, even if the wording is slightly different.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Everyone agrees that the Disability Rights Commission will have a key role to play in assisting individuals to secure their rights. The effect of Amendment No. 14 would be to allow the commission to back legal proceedings in which the applicant was a pressure group, not a particular disabled person or a group of particular disabled persons.
The only proceedings that a pressure group can presently institute on behalf of disabled people is an application for judicial review. Under the general law, the commission could perfectly well decide to take any part it sees fit in such proceedings where it considers that to do so helps it to fulfill its general duties. It could join with another pressure group to institute such proceedings, give evidence in such proceedings or agree to fund such proceedings in which it is taking no other part.
As the law stands, a pressure group cannot bring a representative, or class action on behalf of a group of disabled people because such proceedings are, as yet, unknown to our law. Like the noble Lords, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen, and Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I see some merit in representative actions—to be able to resolve, through one action, a matter involving a number of disabled people against, perhaps, a single employer or service provider. However, while I have some concerns about

1661
eroding the principle that the commission should be there to assist individuals who have experienced discrimination rather than groups who represent them, that is not my main concern about the amendment.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is presently considering the issue of representative actions in a much wider context. This is a fundamental issue of law and one which therefore raises some significant and complex issues. I understand that a consultation paper is expected to be published later this year.
As regards the ability of the disability rights commission to take representative actions, we have already made clear our intentions on this matter in our White Paper, which set out proposals for the establishment of the commission. That made clear that, subject to the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consultation, the commission should be able to bring representative actions in the same way as other bodies to which a new right to bring such actions may extend. That reflects also the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, who considered the matter carefully. Responses to the White Paper also indicated that this proposal attracted considerable support.
To sum up, the amendment relates to an issue that is part of a wider legal review and it is important not to pre-empt that review. We must allow proper, detailed consideration of what is a complex matter, and one that goes well beyond the confines of the Bill. In view of that, I hope that those who put their names to the amendment will withdraw it.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to the range of assistance that the commission might provide. Amendment No. 16 seeks to allow the commission to provide or arrange support for relatives and carers of disabled people whom it is assisting in relation to proceedings. I recognise that there may be instances where it is appropriate to provide or arrange support for relatives or carers of disabled people—for example, when the disabled person needs their help to make his or her case. The Bill makes provision for the commission to
"provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will not press his amendment.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to make provision for the commission to be able to arrange for any other assistance that it thinks appropriate in relation to assisting individuals as well as providing it itself. I recognise that there will be cases where the method adopted by the commission in the course of providing assistance will be by way of arranging that the particular assistance needed is given by others. The Bill contains a general provision for the DRC to provide any other assistance that it thinks appropriate, but I agree that the wording suggested by the amendment may be clearer. I am happy to concede that point.
1662
This has been an interesting debate and I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance as to our intentions in relation to assisting individuals and the class action issues raised earlier.
Lord Rix Lord Rix rose—
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rix, replies, I feel obliged to mention to the. Minister that Amendment No. 14 offers a short, simple solution to a practical problem that is bound to arise as soon as the Bill comes into force. Of course there can be a wider inquiry into all kinds of legal and judicial matters by the Lord Chancellor but that does not dispel the need for an amendment on these lines. Would there be a solution in time for it to be implemented in the Bill by Report stage in your Lordships' House? Failing that, when the Bill goes to another place, could the solution be implemented there? Or would that happen some months after Royal Assent? If that is the position, it is unacceptable.
Earl Russell: In thanking the Minister for her reply, I ask her to go a little further. I ask her for a small undertaking that I hope will not be too much to give. Could she draw this debate—and in particular the remarks made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: The noble Baroness may already have answered this question but I would like her to make something clear. We are all totally persuaded by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Renton and of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that there will be people who require the support of organisations. I thought that I caught an inkling of a suggestion that the Minister would not be so enthusiastic about a lobby that chose somebody who happened in a predicament to pursue a cause in the interests of that particular lobby. While one cannot help being totally in favour of the one, at the same time one is introducing the possibility of the other.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister said that the matter is already being considered by the Lord Chancellor. Am I right in thinking that if Parliament wills it, it will be done; that Parliament is paramount; and that if both Houses agree on the matter, it will become law?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall be extremely happy to draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is right and proper that I do so. However, we are in some danger of getting ourselves into a legal quagmire, by pre-empting something being considered and where there is a larger issue of representative class actions. I am advised that such proceedings are as yet unknown in our law and that we need to consider the matter in a fundamental way. It is a complex issue. The right thing will be for me to draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend, then we can return to it at the next stage.
Lord Rix Lord Rix rose—
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to continue to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, from coming in. Can the

1663
noble Baroness give us a ballpark figure as to when the Lord Chancellor will come to a conclusion on this matter? The question posed by my noble friend Lord Renton is a very real one. There are two issues. First, there is the general issue as to whether a power should be taken for class representation in such cases. The second issue is whether the case for class representation stands alone in its own right and on its own merits. I believe that the Committee would like to take that into consideration if it knew, in advance, that it was unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would come to a conclusion either in time for it to be considered in this place or in another place.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry; I had meant to reply to that point earlier. I forgot that it had been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Regrettably, there will not be a conclusion to this matter before the Bill has gone through both this House and another place because the Lord Chancellor intends to consult widely about what I believe is a fairly major and complex change to our legal system. It would be wrong to introduce such a change without proper consultation with many different parties. I regret that I cannot give the reassurance for which I was asked that this matter will be dealt with before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Rix: In that case, does not that underline the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to a lesser extent the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in as much as the Bill could be on the statute book when the Lord Chancellor brings forth the conclusions of the review and then it will be too late to include such a provision on what will then be an Act? It seems that practically every Member of the Committee is on the side of this amendment or a form of this amendment. I cannot believe that it can be delayed until such time as the Lord Chancellor's Department comes forward with conclusions on class actions. Could the Minister give me an answer?
Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, this is a matter for consultation with the Lord Chancellor. I have already agreed to that. I can write to the noble Lord, and others who have taken part in the debate, to give him the answer, if that would be helpful.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the Government consider including such a measure in the Bill, but bringing it into effect at a later date, possibly by order? There is a provision allowing various clauses of Bills to come into effect at varying times. Perhaps that is a way forward.
Baroness Blackstone: Yet again, I think that it is right for me to consult on this before giving a clear answer.
I have just been handed a note which says that if the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review is legislation, the necessary consequential amendments will be made, including to this legislation. I was going to say that it is never too late to amend an Act of this sort. The outcome
1664
of the consultations will probably require legislation and all existing Acts that need to be amended can be amended by that legislation.
Lord Rix: With that assurance, I shall seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14. However, I have two final questions before the Minister sits down. Am I to understand that the wording in Clause 6(3)(d),
"provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate",
will cover a range of support for advocates, relatives and carers? Am I also to understand that my Amendment No. 17, which seeks after the word "provide" to insert "or arrange", has been accepted? If the Minister can give me those assurances, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, I can give that assurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Rix: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Codes of practice]:
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert—
("(5A) A written statement under subsection (5) may include proposals for changes to the code.
(5B) Where the Secretary of State has proposed changes to the code under subsection (5A), the Commission may undertake further consultation as it considers appropriate on the proposals from the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I can be relatively brief in speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to refuse to approve a code of practice and to give his reasons, but not to provide proposed changes. I am introducing into the Bill flexibility for the Secretary of State to do just that: to propose changes and to enable the commission to consult on any such changes.
My second amendment allows for the affirmative resolution to be used, should an order be made under subsection (6)(c). I believe that it would be appropriate to seek the approval of both Houses in such circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The provisions in the Bill for the disability rights commission to produce codes of practice are very similar to the arrangements for similar bodies. However, they have been updated in the light of experience to ensure that changes to draft codes on which the Secretary of State and the disability rights commission agree can be made speedily and would not involve a bureaucratic process. Therefore, I hope it would be a rare occasion that the Secretary of State would need to refuse to approve a code of practice.

1665
However, turning specifically to the first amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to propose changes to draft codes of practice which he is unable to accept for any reason and then to allow the commission to consult further on his proposals. Far from having any argument with the purpose of this amendment, the present provisions of the Bill already allow both processes to take place. They would allow the Secretary of State to explain how the code might be improved. Similarly, if the commission felt that any of the Secretary of State's proposed changes significantly altered the code, there would be nothing to prevent the commission consulting further on it. I hope that that has allowed clarification. I hope that it has also persuaded noble Lords that such a provision as suggested is unnecessary on the face of the Bill.
On the second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I recognise that there may be circumstances relating to the revocation of a code of practice about which Parliament might well have views because it would indeed be unusual for a code to be revoked rather than revised and reissued.
It is for this reason that orders revoking codes of practice will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and, as such, a copy of the order will be laid before Parliament and Members of both Houses will be free to request a debate if they so wish. This is in line with the advice of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It has given consideration to the appropriateness of the regulation-making powers in the Bill and has made no comment. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my first amendment. I shall read carefully what he said, but I assume that everything that I sought to achieve by Amendment No. 18 is subsumed in the Bill and that, therefore, my amendment is surplus to requirements.
On the point about the affirmative resolution, that is an old argument that I had put to me many times when I sat on that side of the House. I am afraid that I used to do battle in my department on behalf of those who argued for the use of the affirmative resolution. The argument was that it takes up valuable parliamentary time. However, there is a powerful argument for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used automatically and not to wait for people to pray against a regulation when it comes before the House. I am sorry to say that I have to put the noble Lord the Minister on notice that I will return to my plea at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Procedure for amending s.7(1) of the 1995 Act]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—

("(a) such organisations representing employers as he considers appropriate;

(b) such organisations representing disabled persons as he considers appropriate; and

(c) once it has been established, the Disability Rights Commission.

(4) A consultation under subsection (3) shall be commenced on or before 1st January 2000.
(5) In the event that the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2) the order shall be made within six months of the completion of the consultation process under subsection (3)."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. The trouble with Clause 10 is that, as it stands, there would have to be some very considerable time to elapse before the Government could change the small employer exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act, because we would have to await the establishment of this commission, and the long wait is both unnecessary and undesirable.
Your Lordships will recall that the Government lowered the exemption from that Act from firms with 20 or fewer workers to firms with 15 or fewer. To the uninitiated this sounds impressive, but the reality is very different. The fact is that the Government bought a pup. The Government have accepted the view of the Small Employers' Federation. This is a crazy view; that by including more small firms within the scope of this Act the Government would impose unreasonable burdens on them. Well fancy that!
The Disability Discrimination Act says specifically that employers are required to do all that is "reasonable" to avoid discrimination. What is "reasonable" will vary with the size and the resources of an employer and so I suggest that it is impossible to impose "unreasonable" burdens on a small employer because of the provisions of the Act. Even the most cunning and sophisticated barrister could bamboozle a court into believing that the provisions of an Act containing the word "reasonable" could be defined as "unreasonable", but Ministers accepted that.
Naturally, business will oppose any change with a potential cost implication, but I believe that Parliament must take a wider view. The benefits need to be pointed out of associating with disabled people and being able to provide them with goods and services. The Government's reasons for wanting a staged approach for lowering the exemption are, I believe, feeble. What is required now is an early review and a ministerial change of mind.
All that we are asking is that there should be an early movement on bringing more small firms into the Disability Discrimination Act, and asking for no discrimination against disabled people. That is all we are asking for—by law, that no unreasonable burdens be

1667
placed on them. What more could one ask for? How much more reasonable could one be with an amendment of this kind? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Very simply, I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and it comes as no surprise to me, because when we were originally dealing with the Bill I fought for a clause to be withdrawn. The Labour Party followed me into the Division Lobby, and I believe they provided the tellers for it.
The argument does not seem to have changed dramatically since then. If something is unreasonable, I suggest that means that it is unreasonable no matter what the size of the firm may be. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, put it most clearly, and I support him. If we are going to get into the position where you can draw an arbitrary line and say that for some reason this arbitrary line applies now and it does not matter about the reasonableness of the case, you are actually throwing out the main protection that employers have in the whole Bill, in theory anyway.
There is the idea that it is not reasonable to do it in this case because of the nature of the work, or because the work cannot be done efficiently or that it will be damaging to the employer, in which case they will not be able to carry on their business. That is all we are asking here: that this very strong safeguard to the employer is kept in place and this arbitrary line thrown away. That is all it is.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Time is now at a premium and I will be brief. The aim of my noble friend's amendment is to speed up the process by which small employers are brought within the DDA. The Government committed themselves to reviewing the current threshold of 15 employees with a view to a phased reduction, but they have set no time when this should occur. It is the unanimous view of disability organisations in the last review that the threshold should be reduced to two employees.
Far too much emphasis has been placed on the difficulties that employers with fewer than 15 employees have to face in employing disabled people. So I am delighted to know that the conference to be held soon by RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, will offer specific advice to such employers. In particular, detailed guidance will be given on the kind of "reasonable adjustments" that this Bill, when enacted, will stipulate should be made to accommodate disabled employees. As Nick Goss, RADAR's education, training and employment officer says:
"This may be as simple as giving someone time off for physiotherapy".
He believes that operating and monitoring a policy on disabled employees is easier in a business with a small staff. Allowing staff to work from home could also be easier to monitor. RADAR has given an imaginative lead by arranging this conference: one which I hope will persuade others not to exaggerate the problems to which

1668
approval of this amendment would give rise. Where there is a will there is a way, and RADAR deserves high praise for its initiative.
Lord Rix: A somewhat mischievous point has been made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Clause 10(3)(c) reads:
"such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in employment or seeking employment as he considers appropriate"—
which is virtually the same wording as I placed in Amendment No. 14. I hope that the Minister will draw this to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department when they are considering the class action matter.
On a less frivolous note, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in this amendment. I think it is a monstrous assumption that people with a disability will be forced upon small employers. I believe they will be employed if they are suitable for the work, capable of work and can provide the same value for money at all times—which most of them can—as a fully able person.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I believe that this is a very important amendment. As he has done on many occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up in a sentence. If the concept of "reasonableness" is to mean anything, the arbitrary line negates the whole principle: it should go. I think an employer of 16 people will find it extremely difficult to understand why an employer of 14 people needs that line as well, if the concept of "reasonableness" means anything.
Lord Swinfen: I should also like to support this amendment very briefly. I shall not come out with any statistics because I was told I was wrong at Second Reading: I never have been very good at statistics. I think it is quite unreasonable not to have a level playing field among employers. It is unfair on the employers and it is also unfair on disabled people. The vast number of disabled people do not want to travel very far from their homes, and that very often means that they can only go to small employers.
We should also bear in mind, as has been mentioned, that it is a reasonable adjustment that they have to make: not very expensive and not very much. However, what has not been mentioned is that there is a period in which employers can get rid of an employee after they have joined who turns out not to be suitable. That applies to able-bodied people: it applies just as well to disabled people. I believe this to be a very important amendment. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to agreeing to it.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, pointed out that perhaps too much has been made of the difficulties of small employers, but possibly not enough has been made of the difficulties of employees in small firms. If you are dealing with an employer because you want some sort of adjustment to allow you to continue to do your job and you are doing

1669
this in a large company, it is a reasonably impersonal process. Indeed, however it is done, it goes through channels; there is no personal element.
However, if you are dealing with a small employer, you will probably do so face to face. Workforces in businesses that small are not very easy to unionise, so you cannot expect to do it through a formal channel and have someone to represent you. You have to confront a person to whom your proposal may create certain practical difficulties. In fact, you may create a real degree of irritation. If you are going to do that, you need some form of legal or institutional protection. Because the institutional protection is less available in a small business, I should have thought that that might be an argument for saying that more rather than less legal protection is needed.
Baroness Blatch: Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to the amendment. This is an extremely difficult issue. It would be helpful to know whether the Government have carried out any current work on cost-compliance because, if we are to make legislation in this way, it is important for us to know what the costs of meeting the obligations under the law would be for small businesses.
I am afraid that I am going to touch upon one or two statistics, even at the risk of being marginally longer in my remarks. The ballpark figures show that about 10 per cent. of companies in this country, which can be deemed to be large, do in fact employ a very large proportion of the population. However, something like 90 per cent. of all companies employ very few employees. Therefore, we are talking about a large number of companies but a smaller number of employees. I take the point about a level playing field for employees; indeed, it is a very powerful point.
I have two further comments to make about small employers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on a very important point as far as concerns small employers; namely, the fact that they do meet their employees face to face on a daily basis. It has always been my view that, rather than being very critical of them, employers are very often extremely sensitive to the needs of their employees and, in a wholly voluntary capacity, do in fact go a long way towards meeting their needs, including the needs of the disabled.
We are about to embark on the setting up of a commission. I think it would be wise to do two things: first, we should continue talking to employers about the degree to which they are able, in a voluntary capacity, to meet the needs of disabled employees. Secondly, I also believe that with the advent of the commission there should be an increased impetus that will actively work with employers right across the board, whether or not they have an obligation under the law, to help them meet their obligations more and more. The obligations for many companies will be legal. The obligations in respect of employers with fewer than 15 employees will not be legal obligations; nevertheless, there will be a moral obligation to do the best that they can for their employees.
1670
At the end of the day we cannot get away from the fact that the choice for a small employer, especially a very small employer—that is, one employing three to half-a-dozen people—may well be a matter of survival. It may not be a question of whether or not he can meet all his obligations under the law. The heavy hand of the law can be pretty inflexible and unremitting. It may mean that some employers will be unable to meet the costs involved with the arrangements for disabled employees, which may not be perfect but which, nevertheless, allow them to go to work and to hold down a job with their needs being met as far as possible by the employer. Indeed, the cost to some employers of meeting such obligations under the law may be beyond their ability. In that case, as I said, it may be a question of survival.
I believe that we must be somewhat cautious in going down this road without greater consultation with employers. We must also give the commission the opportunity to work with employers to help them meet the needs of the disabled, without necessarily resorting to the heavy hand of the law in the case of very small employers.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I agree absolutely and entirely with what my noble friend has just said. I believe that small firms do employ disabled people, but they do so because they are enlightened and have goodwill, not because they are compelled to by law. When we were discussing the 1995 Act, I questioned how one actually manages to corner someone for discrimination as regards not employing a disabled person. For example, there may be half a dozen prospective employees sitting in a room, one of whom has a disability. If the employer knows the law, I have never been able to understand how he can be accused of discrimination. Of course, if he turns round and says, "We don't employ people with disabilities here", he will find himself in court. However, if he simply says, "I think that there is a most magnificent collection of candidates here; you all have marvellous qualifications, but I think that A fits the bill better than B"—who may have a disability—I do not understand how he could be accused of discrimination.
I wonder whether we are going to have something like the process suggested to me by an American. He told me how they do it there. Apparently, one looks around a whole collection of firms and if, for a number of years, some of them never employ a person with a disability, you prosecute them. That would be totally undesirable. I have never been able to understand how this works. Perhaps the Minister can explain it to me.
Lord Rix: Following on from what the noble Lord has just said, I have one question to ask. I am inclined to agree with him. I do not believe that small employers are forced to take on disabled people just because they are disabled. Surely there is no positive discrimination in any part of the legislation. When people are in front of you seeking a job, you have a choice and you take the best person available. If that person happens to be disabled, so be it. However, you make that choice at the time. If you discriminate against that person because of

1671
his disability then, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, pointed out, you would be contravening the Act. If there were six equal people in front of you, you would have the choice of one of them. Am I not correct in so thinking?
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to begin by responding not to the point that the noble Lord has just made but to the tongue-in-cheek comment he made earlier. I shall certainly be delighted to draw the similarity in drafting to the attention of parliamentary counsel. I have to say that, in practice, the effects of this amendment would be ambiguous. However, I am sure that the purpose of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, in tabling the amendment was to try to encourage the Government to reduce the small employers' threshold without waiting for the DRC to be established.
The Government's aim is to ensure comprehensive rights for disabled people. In response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I should point out that we are of course sympathetic to the idea that smaller firms should be covered by the DDA's employment provisions. I think the noble Lord spoke a little unfairly and seemed to suggest that we had done absolutely nothing in this respect. In fact, we lowered the threshold very soon after coming to office. Where we differ from those who attached their names to the amendment is largely in the timing of such change and how we ensure that it is effective.
The Government believe that effective rights for disabled people can best be achieved with the support of business. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we need actively to work with employers. I strongly agree with her. It is not in the interests of disabled people if employers try to avoid employing or retaining disabled people because they misunderstand the issues or fear the consequences of the law. Again, as the noble Baroness said, the disability rights commission itself has a very important role to play both in advising us and in improving awareness among employers. That is, I am sure, an objective that we all share.
The Committee will recall that the reduction we made in December from 20 employees to 15 was not insignificant. I believe that it was an important step forward. It has widened the coverage of the employment provisions of the DDA to bring in 45,000 more employers with around 800,000 employees, any of whom might need protection in the future and 70,000 of whom are currently disabled. All disabled applicants for jobs in these firms are now also covered. In all, over 75 per cent. of disabled employees are now covered by the DDA's employment provisions.
That does not mean that we think enough has been done, and I recognise how strongly people who have campaigned on this issue for so long, including Members of this House, feel about it. It does mean, however, that we want to avoid going too far too soon. It also means that we intend to involve the commission on this issue, which seems entirely right given that we are establishing it in part to advise us on reviewing the working of the DDA.
1672
I am pleased to say that many small firms already employ disabled people. However, many do not and many do not know as much about disability as larger firms, nor always how to respond effectively to the needs of individual disabled people. We have to deal with the situation as we find it and I think we would be foolish to assume greater understanding of the issues than is the case.
It has been argued in the debate that the concept of reasonableness protects small employers. The Committee will recall that the DDA places a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments in certain circumstances which might help disabled people get or keep jobs. This might involve changes to their employment practices or their premises in a range of ways.
Clearly "reasonableness" is likely to go a long way to ensuring that small employers are not unfairly burdened. But we need to find out more about how the courts and tribunals are interpreting the concept of reasonableness to help us inform and reassure these small employers. At the moment, for example, early evidence from research, which we hope will be published in the spring, is that there was concern about what might count as reasonable among employers who were asked. These employers are those who have been covered by the DDA since December 1995. There was an expectation among such employers that case law would probably make the position clearer over time but also a belief that more guidance was needed despite a detailed code of practice. Guidance is one of the things which the commission will be able to provide.
We have to help improve the situation for disabled people, but I am not sure that the right way is to have the very smallest employers simply learn by trial and error how this law applies to them and their disabled employees and recruits. Such employers do not generally have specialist personnel who can devote time and expertise to dealing with some of these issues. I know that some small firms and their representative organisations are concerned about the consequences of making relatively small mistakes but paying a heavy price at an employment tribunal. Legal costs, even if an employer is in the right, can be large.
Of course, disability issues are often fairly straightforward, particularly if the employer is sensible enough to ask the disabled individual about what might be needed. As regards what my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester said, I certainly would not want to give the impression that disability is a problem for employers, nor that employing disabled people is an expensive issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about compliance costs. The cost of lowering the threshold further is not huge when spread over all the employers concerned. Our consultation document suggested that it might cost employers an extra £2.7 million had the threshold been lowered to its minimum of two. However, in practice, as I am sure the noble Baroness had in mind when she spoke earlier, the costs are not spread evenly but fall unevenly on individual employers. Much of the extra costs are legal costs and it

1673
is those which understandably concern small employers, who fear that they may be the ones who face the cost of having in some cases made an unintentional mistake.
The Employment Service will continue to provide specialist help to employers wishing to take on or keep disabled employees, although it cannot give advice on the law; but the DRC will also help to ensure that there is appropriate awareness-raising and provision of information and advice.
We have already begun the process by improving the DDA helpline. It provides an increasing range of information on the DDA and can now assist business and others with queries about employing disabled people by helping them make contact with specialist organisations. I am pleased that so many voluntary organisations have joined with us to make this system work. My honourable friend the Minister for disabled people is also developing a communications strategy, in co-operation with the National Disability Council and disability and employer bodies, to help ensure that small businesses and others are more informed and aware. We are also undertaking a range of research which will help us further inform and reassure business and underpin future decisions concerning small employers.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, where the DDA is not clear, case law will establish uncertain points. I am confident that our courts will never resort to resolving such issues by counting up total numbers of disabled employees.
In the ways that I have set out, we are trying to establish a climate in which the DRC can look positively at whether the time is right for further change and we are building up evidence to ensure that any change is effective. On that basis, the Government consider that they should wait for the establishment of the DRC before considering when and how the threshold should be lowered. Recognising how strongly my noble friend feels about this, I hope that in these circumstances in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I do feel strongly, as my noble friend said. This has been an extraordinary debate. I am very disappointed with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch; I am astounded at some of the points she raised. I am also disappointed with my noble friend the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that small businesses are sensitive to the needs of their workers. I do not see how she can generalise in that way. Does she mean all small businesses? We are not concerned with those who are sensitive to the needs of their workers. Good luck to them; we all support them. We are concerned only with those who are insensitive. Unless the noble Baroness can prove to the Committee that all small businesses are sensitive, there is a need to tackle the minority—admittedly, it is a minority—of small businesses which are insensitive. That must be taken into account.
Someone mentioned moral obligations. That is wonderful language and a fine and noble concept, but we do not guarantee a defence against discrimination by
1674
moral obligations. We are concerned only with those small employers who do not care about moral obligations and are prepared to discriminate.
It is said that small employers want to act voluntarily. That again is a great philanthropic attitude. I support and applaud those small employers who want voluntarily to avoid discriminating against their workers, but we must take into account the small minority.
My noble friend talked about timing. I do not see that timing is relevant; it is utterly irrelevant. All we seek to do to implement this change is to enable the Government to include practically all small employers in the measure, apart from those with fewer than two workers. That is all we seek. Where is the problem as regards timing?
As regards difficulties of small employers, I repeat that it is not possible for any barrister, solicitor or judge to say that unreasonable burdens can be imposed on small employers. The Disability Discrimination Act specifically states that only reasonable accommodation must be made. Therefore it is not possible to establish a ruling in the courts that unreasonable burdens will be imposed.
My noble friend also referred to the concept of going too far too soon. I am prepared to forgive her for that as it is the first cliché she has used in two hours of debate. Therefore I shall let her get away with that. But why are we going too far? We are simply asking small employers not to discriminate. What is unreasonable about that? What is so horrific in that for small employers? What is horrific about not discriminating against disabled people? We are not asking for the moon. We are simply asking for fairness and, to mention a high-flown concept, justice.
I am afraid that my noble friend has let us down today. We cannot accept that because Margaret Hodge and her colleagues are discussing a communications strategy and research, that is the answer. That is not the answer. We welcome a communications strategy and research, but what we want basically is a defence for disabled people against those small employers who are prepared to discriminate against them. However, as my noble friend will obviously consider this matter, lose much sleep over it, and try to come back on Report with a positive suggestion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to return to a point that he made. If I referred to all small employers, I apologise. I thought I had said that many employers address the needs of their employees in a sensitive manner, particularly as regards their disabled employees. I made the point that the noble Earl made; namely, the likelihood of an employer addressing the needs of his employees is greater where a small number of employees is involved and where therefore the employers come face to face with their employees and with the physical difficulties that many of them experience. Therefore, as I say, I think in that case it is more likely that those needs will be attended to.
I made an appeal for the commission to be set up and to allow it to spend some of its time and its energy working with small employers to help them meet the

1675
needs of their employees—sometimes these needs are not met through ignorance—at a cost which they can bear. However, at the end of the day, the cost of compliance may threaten the survival of some small employers. That fact cannot be completely disregarded. One must consider the implications of having a job, albeit with imperfect arrangements being made for employees, as opposed to having no job at all. That is at least a consideration that has to be taken into account. I was appealing for that factor to be taken into account, but for the commission to continue to work with employers in this regard.
Further, I see no argument for exempting businesses with two employees. I can see an argument for exempting a business comprising one person as at least a self-employed person can reach a judgment as to whether the arrangements he or she is working under are acceptable. However, if we include firms with two employees in the provision, why not include those with one employee as and when that is possible with the agreement and consensus of employers, and when the Government have assessed how the commission is working?
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Before we proceed to the next amendment, I must put a proposition to the Committee. I know that there is a desire to finish the Committee stage before we discuss the orders. However, to be fair to those who will discuss the orders we should try to finish the Committee stage by about eight o'clock. I do not in any way wish to curtail the debate. If it is not possible to finish by that time, we shall have to break for dinner and then return to the Committee stage. However, if we could finish the Committee stage by eight o'clock I believe that would be in everyone's interest.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 6, after ("day") insert ("no later than 1st January 2000").
The noble Lord said: I firmly believe that by securing an early legislative opportunity for the establishment of a disability rights commission this Government have signalled their commitment to civil rights for disabled people. This is a move which all of us here wholeheartedly welcome. Some may therefore consider it a trite point to seek a definitive date for the full operation of the commission. However, history has taught caution in these matters. We should consider the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act which was given Royal Assent in 1986. Four sections of the Act have never been implemented over a decade later. Five sections were implemented in the year following Royal Assent and
1676
only two sections came into effect in the same year as the Bill was passed. We need a commission to enforce the rights of disabled people as a matter of urgency. The Disability Discrimination Act has lacked teeth for far too long. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment. In the 22 years that I have spent in this Chamber I have seen many parts of Acts passed which have not yet been brought into force. Some of those have been repealed before they have been brought into force. That adds weight to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that to impose a deadline with regard to this measure is a sensible step and would concentrate the Government's mind wonderfully.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is in a hurry to establish the commission, and understandably so. I know that view is shared by many Members of the Committee who over the years have spent so much time in promoting the rights of disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was kind enough to say, the Government share that sense of urgency. The Disability Rights Task Force was announced within months of the Government coming into power and established in December 1997. It made its recommendations on the role and functions of the disability rights commission before Easter 1998. Those recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper that was launched in July 1998. The public consultation lasted until October and the Bill received its Second Reading on 17th December. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we have worked to a tight timetable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has pointed out, his amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill a deadline for the establishment of the commission and bringing into effect all the provisions of this Bill.
However, we must ensure that when the commission is established, it is able to begin to address the tasks that will face it. The preparatory work involved in setting up a new commission is considerable, for example the appointment of commissioners; the recruitment and training of staff; the procurement and possible adaptation of premises; and the design and installation of communication and office systems. Initial planning of this work has already begun but much of this work cannot commence until the Bill has received Royal Assent and the Chairman and Commissioners are appointed. It must be right for them to lead the work on putting in place the arrangements for this independent body.
While I am sure we all share the view that the commission should be operational as soon as possible, we do not believe that it would be realistic to complete the preparatory work in six months. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People has indicated that we expect the DRC to be established in spring 2000. We think that this is the earliest practicable date if we are to expect this new body of commissioners to get things right. But of course final decisions will need to be taken in consultation with the chairman. For those reasons I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: If the Minister could possibly define when the spring of 2000 will be, I would feel able to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It would be a very unwary Minister who defined the meaning of "spring" in parliamentary or Whitehall terms. I cannot do anything more than say that spring 2000 is the date when the commission is expected to be established. The Government are determined to speed this along as much as we possibly can.
Lord Rix: I assume that we are now talking about the spring equinox, 21st March 2000. I hope that that date will be noted by the Minister. With that possible prompt for a speedy introduction of the disability rights commission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc.]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert (", some of whom shall have knowledge and experience of sensory impairment, learning disability and mental health problems").
The noble Lord said: At the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, whose name is on the Marshalled List, I rise to move Amendment No. 22 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. Again, I shall be brief.
The purpose of Amendment No. 22 is to trigger debate on the necessary breadth of knowledge, understanding and experience—both of types of impairment and disability discrimination—that it will be necessary to have among the commissioners. It is important that between them the commissioners should have knowledge of the full range of impairments and of disability discrimination. It is also important that among them there should be people with direct experience of the major types of impairment: physical and sensory impairments, as well as learning disabilities.
The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to ensure that the proviso that more than half the commissioners should at all times be disabled people holds for all appointments. This is an issue of principle for disability organisations, which believe that personal experience of disability should be an important aspect informing the work of the commissioners. While there are many other necessary attributes for the post, if one accepts the premise that personal experience is desirable, the clause exempting the Secretary of State from applying the 51 per cent. quota for the position of chair sends the message that there are no suitably qualified disabled candidates. The chairman is the public face of the commission and can send a powerful message to employers and service providers about the abilities and rights of disabled people, among whom there will be many suitable candidates for the chairmanship.
I look forward very much to what my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will say about the amendment. I know that it will be eminently worth our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: In withdrawing my amendment which was specifically about learning disability in order to support the more general amendment, Amendment No. 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I still wish to press the point regarding the importance of a person with a learning disability, with appropriate support, serving as a commissioner. I have already expressed this view to the Minister and I received a most courteous but, alas, fairly negative reply.
I agree that to capture the range of impairments in five or six categories may seem artificial and that it would tend towards the medical rather than the social model of disability—I am referring to her letter. Nevertheless, I believe that people with a learning disability are in a very definite category of their own. To begin with, the greatest cause of disability at birth is a learning disability. At first, the problems may be confined to the medical arena. However, as learning disabled people grow from babyhood to childhood, from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, the medical needs of many become no more and no less than their peers born without a disability. The problems then are social, educational and of course the quality of life.
Recently MENCAP has altered its constitution to ensure that people with a learning disability are on its councils. The Minister, Paul Boateng, when involved with the Department of Health, promised at the MENCAP conference in September last year that people with a learning disability would be serving on the health authorities and health boards before the end of this Parliament. The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that these changes will have a profound effect for the better on the self-belief of people with a learning disability.
Recently the Millennium Commission awarded MENCAP nearly £2 million to ensure that people with a learning disability would receive training to enable them to take up many more responsible positions in life. Some of the money will be spent on training 150 people with a learning disability each year for three years, plus their enablers-900 people in all—to make it possible for them to serve on committees, councils, boards—and to be commissioners.
I know that there are many who believe that a person with a learning disability serving on a committee is a contradiction in terms. If you have been concerned with learning disability as long as I have, you will know that the range of ability is very great indeed—from those who are profoundly and multiply disabled, to those who are severely disabled, like my daughter, to those who have a learning disability which is barely indistinguishable from a learning difficulty.
Unhappily, the world outside seems to think of the needs of a person with a physical disability as being paramount. Next in the queue—if they are lucky—come

1679
people with sensory impairments, while people with a learning disability or a mental health problem are not considered to be fit to join the queue at all.
Acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will ensure that the Government are in no way a party to that view, and a major step will have been taken to ensure that the least respected and least represented in our society are truly being granted their disability rights.
Lord Swinfen: I support these amendments. There is a fear of people with learning disabilities which also extends to people with physical disabilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, there is a range of learning disabilities. The Committee knows that for a number of years I have spoken in the House about disability. For a number of years I have been briefed on Bills by people with learning disabilities—and very good they have been too. They know their subject very much better than I do and I found it extremely useful. I say this to emphasise the fact that the commission must have among its commissioners people with a wide range of experience of different types of disability.
As to Amendment No. 29, I am sure that there will be commissioners who are profoundly deaf. They will need interpreters for sign language. We must have people there for the purposes of advocacy or communication support for the commissioners. There will be other support staff, but let us not forget these special ones.
Lord Addington: The purpose of these amendments is to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the people who know these problems best are those who have direct experience of them. If you are disabled, you know what that is like and you know what discrimination is like. These amendments draw to the Government's attention that unless they include these people they are ignoring those who have the best knowledge of the subject. If they accept these amendments—or some like them—they will be drawing in expertise to the exact place where it can do the most good.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I warmly support Amendment No. 22. It is important to have commissioners with experience of each of the major types of disability. It is particularly important to mention those with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems. MIND says that the latter face particular discrimination and stigma. I was horrified to read on page 15 of the February issue of Disability Now that David Grayson, who is the chair of the National Disability Council, says that when a person with a mental disability tries to explain in a job interview the gaps in his CV he will sometimes attribute it to his being in prison because he thinks that someone who has been in prison has a better chance of getting the job than someone who has a history of mental health difficulties.
I just want to say from personal experience—my noble friend Lady Masham would also say this but, unfortunately, she cannot be present today—that the
1680
best way of getting to understand people's problems is by getting to know them and going around with them. When I have been the only person with a disability on a committee the other members have learnt by going to the canteen with me and going around seeing things. That is the way they learn. They say, "My goodness, I did not realise the problems you face". It is not the obvious problems but the others in day-to-day life that they discover. In its briefing MENCAP says that choosing a commissioner with a learning disability will be a positive message to people with learning difficulties. I think it will be an extremely positive message and a real learning experience for the other commissioners and the people with whom the commissioners will come into contact in the course of their work.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: As we will run past eight o'clock if we are not careful, I want just 30 seconds to express my support for the amendment in my name. Only disabled people know what disability means. Therefore, that knowledge is crucial to being on the commission. I believe that the chairman should be disabled. I know of the argument that there should be a random sample, but I believe that the chairman should be disabled. That would send a signal to the great British public about how well disabled people can do the job. The experience is vital.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak briefly to my Amendment No. 28, which is looking more and more anomalous in this group of amendments. It should be for the commission to appoint its chief executive and not the Secretary of State.
Lord Thurlow: I should like strongly to support the substance of Amendment No. 22 in relation to mental health. I say "the substance" because I am not happy about the amendment's wording. My point is that the field of mental health is a separate universe in the realm of medicine. One cannot handle problems of mental health unless one has had experience of it. I do not think the present wording would meet the problem. One does not necessarily want on the commission people who are mentally ill or have mental illness. It is more important that the other half of the commission should have someone with this specific knowledge and experience. I do not see how the commission can responsibly deal with mental health problems otherwise. Subject to that reservation about the wording, I strongly support the substance of the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin with some general remarks about this group of amendments. In common with all public bodies, the appointment of commissioners to the commission will be made in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. As such, the process will be open, transparent and fair.
Through Amendment No. 22, my noble friends seek to ensure that some commissioners have knowledge of sensory impairment, learning difficulties and mental

1681
health problems. It must be right that between them the commissioners have the range of experience necessary to ensure from the start that the commission establishes credibility with all its key stakeholders. To do its job properly, it must understand the needs of disabled people and also those of employers and service providers. The Secretary of State will of course seek to appoint commissioners so that, collectively, they have a wide range of knowledge and experience and so that an appropriate balance is struck between the relevant interests. Much can be expected of a commission of 10 to 15 strong, and when making the appointments the Secretary of State will, I am sure, be keen to try to ensure that there are commissioners with a knowledge of the issues affecting people with sensory impairments, learning difficulties—about which so many Members of the Committee have spoken in the debate—and those with mental health problems.
The Disability Rights Task Force considered the question of whether the legislation should specify the type of experience the commissioners should have. It concluded that that would not be appropriate as it would incline towards the medical rather than the social model of disability. It also concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that people with personal experience of all types of disabilities and impairments were appointed, given the need to keep the number of commissioners at a reasonable level.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate the difficulties of including a list in legislation. Were we to accept that approach, would we not have to consider extending the list further? For example, what about people with a knowledge of physical impairment? Any list is unlikely to be exhaustive; and if it were, it would be impossible that a commission of 10 to 15 members could have direct knowledge and experience of everything on the list.
The commission will be able to draw in expertise from elsewhere, as and when required, and it will have an important role in working with organisations representing the whole range of interests. This will help in no small measure to ensure that the commission has at its disposal the range of expertise that it will need.
Before addressing Amendment No. 23, I shall need to speak first about Amendment No. 24, which seeks to ensure that the chair or deputy chair has personal experience of disability. I can be very brief about this. It seems inconceivable that people with a disability will not present themselves as the best people for the job of chairman or deputy chairman or possibly both.
I return now to Amendment No. 23. I welcome the debate on the issue of the first three appointments in that it gives me an opportunity to clarify the Government's intention. I can assure the Committee that the intention is not that the first three appointments should not be disabled people. Indeed, the provision would allow the first three appointments to be disabled people. But to do without the provision would mean that the first two appointments must be disabled people. Noble Lords will, I am sure, understand that there needs to be flexibility in the order of the appointment of commissioners. The provision to include the first three
1682
appointments from majority arrangements is just a practical one. The ultimate aim is to ensure a majority of disabled commissioners. We certainly will not want to lose sight of that.
I turn briefly to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is important that the first chief executive has a role in shaping the commission before it is open for business. Indeed, he or she must be appointed early enough in the process to take a lead in setting up the practical arrangements for the commission. We want to get on as fast as possible with that. It is important that he or she is appointed as soon as possible after Royal Assent if we are to be up and running by the Spring of 2000. The commission would hardly be in a position to undertake the appointment at this early stage but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State will consult fully the newly appointed chair over the appointment of the chief executive. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Although I am strongly convinced that we must return to this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert ("so long as his total continuous term of office does not exceed 10 years").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 are in my name, and Amendment No. 26 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley; however, they all meet the same point. We seek to introduce into the Bill limited terms of office both for commissioners and for the chairman and deputy chairman. The amendments are self-evident regarding the time limits for the appointments. However, I wish to point out that I have included the word "continuous" in Amendment No. 25 in order that a person could be re-appointed at some later date but could not serve a continuous appointment for longer than 10 years. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 26 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 27.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendment No. 25 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to put a 10-year limit on the amount of time a commissioner may serve. Amendment No. 26 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, seeks to ensure that the chair and deputy chair of the commission serve for specified periods. Amendment No. 27 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has a similar effect.
The guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments indicates that we should allow flexibility so that appointments can be made for between

1683
two and five years and Schedule 1 to the Bill replicates that. The guidance recognises that re-appointments are also acceptable. It stipulates that, overall, and taking account of one re-appointment, posts should normally be held for no longer than between six and 10 years. Given the terms of the guidance, it is inconceivable that a commissioner will ever serve longer than 10 years.
Regarding chairs and deputy chairs, noble Lords will, I am sure, understand that to appoint a chairman and deputy chairman rigidly for a minimum of four years—or indeed a fixed term of five years—is inflexible and may not necessarily prove to be in the best interests of the commission and its key stakeholders. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise the wisdom of avoiding a situation in which several, if not most, of the commissioners, including the chair and deputy chair, are required to stand down during the same year, for no reason other than that the Secretary of State was required by this amendment to appoint them for a similar fixed term. Furthermore, noble Lords will sympathise with the personal circumstances of potential commissioners who are simply not in a position to accept re-appointment lasting for a minimum of four years, and who may be forced therefore to decline the offer of appointment or re-appointment. Generally, it will be our intention to make these appointments for more than two years in the first instance.
For those reasons, I ask the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I shall read the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, leave out line 28 and insert ("publish it within six weeks").
The noble Baroness said: I, too, wish to lend my support to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
I tabled this amendment in order to receive clarification that the annual report would be publicly available. The report is important for three reasons. It will provide ways in which the public and people with disabilities will be able to judge how effectively the commission is working, how it is carrying out its functions and responsibilities. A study of the proceedings of the Disability Rights Commission will provide an indicator as to the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act, its strengths and weaknesses. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, an understanding of the work of the commission will help voluntary organisations to be more effective in their own work of campaigning, raising awareness etc. Information such as the details of the number of cases, the type of issues and what kind of action was undertaken by the commission will enable organisations which represent people with disabilities to see where particular difficulties arise. A voluntary organisation might then, for instance, choose to direct
1684
awareness-raising campaigns towards training for a particular group—employers, cinema managers, social security or council officers etc.
To satisfy any of those points, publication of the report will need to be prompt and not be delayed for any reasons. I am not certain that the present wording ensures that. It may be that it is mandatory on the Secretary of State to publish the report. If that is the case, it should be clearly expressed.
I specified a period of six weeks in the amendment. It is a rather arbitrary limit. I should be happy if the period were much shorter.
I wish to say a brief word on Amendment No. 31 on accessible formats. The commission must clearly comply with the Act and publish the report in accessible formats for people with disabilities. Further, it should be in plain English and simple language so that it is easily communicable to all people with disabilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support this group of amendments. In relation to Amendment No. 31 on accessible formats perhaps I may put in a little plug for a brownie point for the White Paper which contained the proposals for establishing the commission. MENCAP said that it was a model of good practice from the point of view of clarity for people with learning disabilities. Therefore, it is only logical that the report should be equally so.
Lord Rix: Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 stand in my name. I shall be brief as the time available is very short. It is a sine qua non that the report needs to be published in a formula accessible to people with sensory impairments or learning disability. I cannot believe that the Government would rule against Amendment No. 31.
Turning to Amendment No. 32, the constitution of the commission should be subject to review so that improvements could be made—possibly the guaranteed insertion of people with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health problems.
Earl Russell: I support Amendment No. 30. All governments have published controversial reports on the day before the Summer Recess!
Lord Swinfen: I wish to ask a rather impish question. Some time ago the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the report would be presented to the Welsh Assembly. Will it be in Welsh?
Baroness Blackstone: Starting with Amendment No. 30, on speed of publication, I assure my noble friend Lady Gould that publication of the annual report will occur as soon as is practicable after all the necessary administrative procedures have been dealt with. Indeed, I believe it is common practice for the reports to be published on the day that they are laid before Parliament. To provide a statutory timescale in legislation would, I believe, unnecessarily constrain matters. I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press her amendment.

1685
I turn now to Amendment No. 31. It must be right that the Disability Rights Commission should produce its annual report in a range of formats that will make it accessible to a wide range of disabled people—not just on demand, but in anticipation of a clear need. To that extent, I welcome the intention behind the amendment. Noble Lords will appreciate that experience and time will inform what that need is. Indeed, I hope and expect that the commission will adopt this principle when it issues other documentation intended for use by disabled people.
I turn now to Amendment No. 32. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be subject to a review every five years, during which it will have to show that it provides the best framework for carrying out the functions with which it is charged. The review may consider both the powers and the constitution of the body. In addition, the Department for Education and Employment has a policy of subjecting every new non-departmental public body to a financial management survey 18 months after establishment. The commission will also have to produce and lay before Parliament an annual report. Noble Lords need be in no doubt that the commission will be under close scrutiny from many quarters to ensure that it is meeting its obligations. We do not believe that an additional review of the constitution of the commission will add anything to the quality of its service. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the DRC report will need to comply with the requirements of the Welsh Language Act.
8 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: In light of the Minister's reply and the assurance that there will be early publication of the report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Formal investigations and nondiscrimination notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4), it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing to the parties concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief in moving Amendment No. 33. The simple request behind this amendment is that where the commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4) it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing. I believe that the Minister will find it hard to refuse that request. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Schedule 3 provides for the person on whom a non-discrimination notice is served to have the opportunity to make both written and oral representations. Furthermore, it allows a period of 28 days for any such representations to be made.
1686
Paragraph 8(4) enables the commission to refuse to receive oral representations on behalf of the person concerned by someone whom it has reasonable grounds to consider unsuitable. Similar provisions to this are to be found in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. As far as I am aware, there have been no suggestions that the existing commissions have exercised their powers inappropriately, and I believe the new commission must be trusted to exercise its judgment in a fair and balanced manner.
I reassure the Committee that the Government fully expect that almost invariably it will be right for the commission to give its reasons and that in 99.9 per cent. of cases it will do so. However, should it decide in the unusual circumstances of a particular case that some good reason exists to refuse to do so, then the courts, which will be able to approach the matter knowing the exact circumstances that have arisen, will be well placed to adjudicate. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the case for being chary about imposing a rigid rule on the commission in such circumstances and therefore will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I believe that the arguments for giving reasons are very powerful. I shall return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No.2) Order 1999
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham I beg to move the order standing in her name on the Order Paper.
During the drafting of the original uprating order a transcription error meant that the amount of benefit for widowers' pensions in industrial injuries benefits was shown as £66.25 whereas the actual uprated amount equals £66.75. This is the corrected order. This matter was fully discussed in the House on the 21st January. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No.5)Order 1998
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th December 1998 be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, police powers to stop and search are contained in a number of different statutes. The Code of Practice A issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is a very important document because it specifies how the police should exercise their powers to conduct stops and searches. A draft revised Code A has been laid before Parliament because it is necessary to update it to reflect changes in legislation. At the same time the opportunity is being taken to clarify how searches under stop and search powers are to be conducted. The majority of the proposed revisions to Code A are purely consequential to the changes in legislation which have already been approved by Parliament.
Section 8 of the Knives Act 1997 amended Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It allows an inspector to authorise the exercise of stop and search powers for up to 24 hours if he or she reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence may take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in a specified locality in the police area. Section 25 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 further amended Section 60 of the 1994 Act. It provides a power for a constable to require the removal of, and to seize, items used to conceal identity within the specified locality for which authority under Section 60 of the 1994 Act has been given. Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 allows an officer of the rank of assistant chief constable, where it appears expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism, to authorise his officers in a specific area to stop and search pedestrians and anything carried by them for articles which could be used for terrorist purposes.
As for the conduct of searches under stop/search powers, Code A currently requires any search involving more than the removal of an outer coat, jacket or gloves to be done,
"out of public view, for example in a police van or police station if there is one nearby".
Code A does not currently specify the extent of a search that may be conducted in a police van, nor does it specify how searches conducted at a nearby police station are to be conducted. Consequently, there is uncertainty about the procedures for conducting these searches and the relationship with the procedures for searching detainees at police stations contained in PACE Code C on detention. A revision is proposed so that searches involving exposure of intimate parts of the body may not take place in the back of a police van. If such a search involves a juvenile (under 17 years old) the presence of an appropriate adult will be required, as is already required for similar searches under Code C on detention.
It is a statutory requirement under Section 67 of PACE that when the Secretary of State wishes to revise a PACE code of practice there must be a public consultation exercise before the revised code is placed before Parliament for approval. A draft revised Code A was therefore published together with a consultation paper in August 1998. I am pleased to say that in general the proposed revisions were welcomed. In particular, all of the police associations have welcomed the proposed revisions resulting from changes in legislation. Both the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association have warmly welcomed the clarification on the conduct of searches under stop/search powers. This is a most encouraging response from the police service.
There is concern about the actual way in which the police exercise their stop and search powers. Publication last December of the results of the second year's ethnic monitoring of police activity shows black people in particular are still getting disproportionate attention from the police.
We are currently awaiting the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. Getting to grips with the issue of stop and search will be one of the key challenges for the police service as it works to gain the trust and confidence of all sections of the community.
The Government welcome the initiative that is under way in the Metropolitan Police Service to ensure that stop and search is used fairly and effectively—by focusing on ensuring that managers control the way in which the power is used and challenge unfair practices. Also most welcome is the work being taken forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers which will lead to a good practice guide for forces on the effective use of ethnic monitoring data.
Managing the use of the power is the key. That is why we have included a new note for guidance in the draft code which emphasises the importance of supervising officers considering and addressing any evidence that stop and search powers were being used in a discriminatory way.
The Government propose to commence Section 8 of the Knives Act and Section 25 of the Crime and Disorder Act at the same time that the revised Code A would, subject to the agreement of this House, come into force—that is, on 1st March 1999. Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act came into force on 3rd April 1996. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We on these Benches are content with the order.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when an order such as this comes before the House it is important that we have some discussion of its implications. As a society we have a somewhat schizophrenic view of police powers. Polls indicate that people are concerned about crime, even in areas where the level of crime is relatively low. They want to see the bobby on the beat. They want a tough line against criminals and terrorists; yet that same society is jealous of its civil liberties and reluctant to give the police excessive powers.

1689
I wish to draw attention to one part of the code. As the Minister indicated, it is a matter of ongoing concern and, I suspect, ongoing debate. I refer to the use of stop and search powers in relation to ethnic minorities. In his evidence to the Lawrence Inquiry, Sir Paul Condon said:
There is considerable concern about the disproportionate application of police powers to some minority ethnic groups, especially those powers involving a significant element of discretion. London is becoming increasingly diverse and we accept that our officers are not fully equipped to deal with the increasingly rich diversity of the public we serve".
As the Minister said, black people are five times more likely to be stopped and searched. Sir Herman Ouseley said:
"For too long the police in particular have acted as if they are untouchable when it comes to any disciplinary action involving ethnic minorities or allegations of racism. They have felt few constraints preventing them from treating black people as more likely to be criminals than the victims of crime, even though the facts show this not to be the case".
We on these Benches particularly welcome Note 4DA of the guidance which asks supervising officers to monitor any evidence that officers are using their discretion on the basis of stereotype images of certain persons or groups. There is a need for the police to be aware that the powers in this order are special powers to be used in specified circumstances. We welcome the emphasis of courteousness and consideration and the request to be aware of religious sensitivities.
We live in a less deferential society, and in many ways a society more difficult to police. As I have said in previous debates, I grew up on stories from my father of a very tough part of Liverpool which was policed by a policeman affectionately known as "Klearoff' because when he saw trouble brewing that is what he told the assembly to do. Today's police have to deal with much tougher problems: drugs; terrorism; an increased use of firearms and knives; and an increase in casual violence. On these Benches we recognise that when the police have to implement such orders, they are not dealing with choir boys or even choir girls. We recognise that we often ask our police officers to go into extremely tough and dangerous situations.
We also recognise the fact—it is a matter in which we can take considerable pride—that the sight of a policeman coming round the corner in our society in the main is a reassuring rather than a threatening sight for the great majority of our citizens. That is a matter in which both the police and we can take pride. But that remains true as long as both Parliament and police are alert to the implications of legislation, and that legislation should be drawn up not only with the operational needs of the police in mind but also with due care to civil liberties.
We believe that in the order and guidance the Government have got it right. We urge that in their implementation there should be consistency, sensitivity and integrity. In that way the police will retain public confidence and trust, which is the prerequisite of good policing in a free and civilised society.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the officer to whom the noble Lord referred was unlike some policemen I have
1690
heard on Merseyside in using a phrase like "Clear off'. I thought that he might have used the somewhat stronger language to which we are accustomed in the north-west.
I welcome the support given for the order. Perhaps I may add to what has been said about the need for stop and search powers to be used fairly. The Association of Chief Police Officers has set up a project to develop the effective use of Section 95 data which will inform the development of a good practice guide. The Metropolitan Police Service has reviewed its use of stop and search and has developed a plan to manage the tactic fairly and effectively. It will pilot that on five sites of the Metropolitan Police Service. It will also be tried out at one site in Nottinghamshire.
The HMIC thematic inspection report on police community and race relations and the reinspection of 15 forces which is nearing completion will be used also to assess progress. A new contract providing the police service with training on police, race and community relations began on 1st January 1999. The move is a force-based approach to training because that will allow local needs to be identified and addressed. I hope that that also meets the needs of the noble Lords who spoke tonight.
I trust that the House will approve the draft order which will allow the revised code to come into effect on 1st March.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999.
The purpose of this order is to adjust temporarily the shares of National Lottery income to good causes so as to provide the New Opportunities Fund with the funding we promised it in September last to deliver three new initiatives.
The Government announced their intention in the 1997 White Paper, The People's Lottery, to establish a New Opportunities Fund. The National Lottery Act 1998 made this a reality. NOF, as it is generally known, will fund initiatives in health, education and the environment. There is no question of the lottery taking over core funding responsibilities for these areas. This expenditure will be additional to core government support. NOF was officially launched last Friday, when it invited applications for its first initiative—healthy living centres.
We were able to create NOF without disadvantaging the existing good causes. It had originally been told to plan on the basis that it would receive 20 per cent. of the £9 billion which it was anticipated would be raised over the course of the operator's licence, which ends in

1691
September 2001. This amounted to £1.8 billion each. In the event, it became clear that the National Lottery was likely to raise an additional £1 billion, taking income to the good causes to £10 billion. It is this additional £1 billion which made possible the initial NOF programmes.
The National Lottery continues to be a great success. We now estimate that income to the good causes will be at least £10.6 billion over the lifetime of the licence, which is £600 million more than our previous estimate. We announced in September last year that this additional money would be split between NOF, which would get an additional £400 million, and arts, sports, heritage and charities—which would get an additional £50 million each. So rather than £1.8 billion, arts, sports, heritage and charities can now expect £1.85 billion over the life of the licence. The Millennium Commission, about which I will say more later, is not affected.
In deciding how best to allocate the additional £600 million, we kept in mind the pressures on the good causes. But we also needed to balance this against the opportunity to use the additional money for pressing priorities in health, education and environment. We believe that the split proposed strikes the right balance. It gives arts, sports, heritage and charities £50 million more than originally expected. And it allows NOF to launch significant new initiatives.
The original three initiatives were announced in September and will support regular out-of-school activities; training teachers and librarians to use technology; and a core network of healthy living centres. The additional £400 million will allow NOF to develop three further initiatives. We published our proposals for these in November last year, in the consultation document, New Links for the Lottery. The three initiatives are: green spaces and sustainable communities, which will help urban and rural communities across the UK to understand, improve and care for their natural and living environment; cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care, which will build on local fund-raising to address local needs; community access to lifelong learning. We also proposed an expansion to the after schools initiative to find 250,000 new summer school places.
We have received well over 300 responses to our consultation and are currently considering them. The vast majority welcomed our ideas. We hope very soon to bring to the House an order to establish the new initiatives.
The order changes the percentage shares of the affected good causes. If we did not do so, the current percentage split would mean that only £200 million of the additional £600 million would flow through to NOF, rather than £400 million as intended. The purpose of this order, therefore, is to transfer a further £200 million to NOF.
The Secretary of State and officials have been in discussion with the distribution bodies about how they would prefer this to be done. They decided that they would prefer a quick reduction as early as possible, followed by a return to their current percentage shares.
1692
This is what the order before you does. It reduces the percentage income shares to arts, sports, heritage and charities from 16⅔ per cent. to 5 per cent. for 13 weeks from 15th February until 16th May. At the end of this period, their share of lottery income reverts to 16⅔ per cent. During the same period, NOF's share increases to 60 per cent. before reverting to 13⅓ per cent. All the good causes have substantial reserves sitting in the National Lottery distribution fund and can meet all of their commitments during this period and afterwards.
We appreciate that these changes can make it more difficult for the distributing bodies to plan ahead. And we are very grateful to them for the constructive way in which they have approached this issue. The Secretary of State was able to announce yesterday for the first time that we will not change again the percentage shares to arts, sports, heritage and charities for the remainder of the licence period. This is in addition to the undertaking already given that these good causes are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of lottery proceeds after the current licence expires.
This order does not directly affect the Millennium Commission, but it may be helpful if I set out how we anticipate its future funding stream developing. As we have previously announced, the Millennium Commission is assured £2.017 billion over its lifetime. At present the Millennium Commission gets 20 per cent. of money going to the good causes. It was originally planned, however, that at the end of September 1999 the percentage shares for the Millennium Commission and NOF would switch so that the Millennium Commission would receive 13⅓ per cent. (rather than 20 per cent. as at present) and NOF 20 per cent. (rather than 13⅓ per cent. as at present).
We have now decided that the Millennium Commission's share of lottery income should remain unchanged at 20 per cent. until it reaches its target of £2.017 billion. Once that figure has been reached, all of the Millennium Commission's 20 per cent. will go to NOF.
I would stress that these are our best estimates. Accurately predicting future lottery income is almost as difficult as predicting an individual draw. That is why our plans are made on the basis of cautious forecasts. if, as we all hope, more money comes through, then all the good causes will share in it. We are clear that the continued success of the National Lottery is very good news indeed for all the good causes. It is changing the face of the United Kingdom for the better and bringing benefits, direct and indirect, to all of us.
I must stress that this order does not change policy, it gives effect to policies announced last September. We have gone beyond that announcement, however, by giving the distributing bodies an undertaking that there will be no further change to their percentage shares during the rest of this licence. And this, as I have said, is in addition to the undertaking already given that these good causes are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of lottery proceeds after the current licence expires. I am sure that the good causes welcome the greater certainty which this will give them now and into the future. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. However, I must make it clear that when the Motion is put to the House I cannot give the Government any assistance in its passage. The convention of this House is that the Opposition Front Bench does not oppose the making of an order, and I shall indeed abide by that convention. Let me make it clear, too, that I am of course in general favour of the projects which will benefit from this order in so far as at this stage we know anything much about them.
My objection is simple. It is that the Government are raiding the arts, sports and good causes lottery fund to provide for them. I was intrigued to note that the Minister said that yesterday it was possible for the Secretary of State to announce that he would not change the system of funding again. When one reads the report of the Standing Committee, the words read rather differently. What actually happened was that the Secretary of State said:
"There will be no further raid on that money".
The Secretary of State for the first time admitted that the Government are carrying out a raid on lottery funds. His admission is now on the record.
When the National Lottery was established in 1994 that was done in order to:
"restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride".
It became a massive success story. Lottery money brought about a renaissance in the arts of Britain. It revolutionised sport. Hundreds of amateur dramatic societies, small sports clubs and local museums benefited from it. The lottery boosted the work of our charities.
The Labour Party's main source of opposition to the National Lottery at the time of its inception was that, given time, the Conservative Party would use its proceeds as a surrogate for government expenditure. Time and again it accused us of that—and it was untrue. Throughout the three years that the Conservative government presided over the lottery, no such action was taken. Today that action is being taken by a Labour Government.
We are being asked to agree to an extra £200 million being taken away from the original good causes, which are already being hit by the cuts in their allocations from 20 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. However much the Government try to argue that the arts and good causes will still have funding, they cannot escape the fact that the lottery funds have been raided by this order—the Secretary of State himself said so.
This order also makes a mockery of the additionality principle under which it was established, despite the Minister's valiant attempt to argue that this money will
1694
not go to core funding. The Prime Minister himself originally supported the principle of additionality. He said:
"We don't believe it would be right for lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
That must be right. The National Lottery was not intended to be used to fund projects which are the Government's responsibilities, such as cancer care. The Government state that the New Opportunities Fund initiatives must be:
"additional to government expenditure and not a substitute for it".
The reality of the matter is that the initiatives will indeed be a substitute for government expenditure. Again, I do not for one moment say that the projects which will be funded by moneys diverted from the arts and good causes will be misspent as such. I anticipate that all the projects will be most useful and most welcome. But I argue that they should not rely upon the lottery for their funds. At the moment, of course, we do not have the details of these projects and I would not expect that we would. I appreciate that many of them are likely to be popular, but the public has not yet grasped what these raids on the lottery funds really mean for them, for the arts and for good causes. We shall do our best over the coming months to lift that veil.
In the meantime, I would be grateful on a technical matter if the Minister could explain to the House how it is possible for the New Opportunities Fund—the Minister conveniently refers to it as NOF and, in the context of the last order before this House we were told the police in Liverpool told people to "clear off'; so I wonder whether NOF will not now become something of a rude acronym in this House—to draw down 86 per cent. of its funds (£244 million) without publishing the causes to which it goes, while the rest of the five original good causes have drawn down an average of 35 per cent. because they have to wait for a private matching first.
Also, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the full implications of the New Opportunities Fund and the way in which it sits within the funding structure of central and local government departments. What happens if the Government raid the lottery to provide funds for excellent schemes which depend for their very existence—their core funding, as well as the Government's—on services funded by local governments who cannot sustain those services? To turn from the abstract to a practical example, I refer briefly to the issue of libraries.
On 1st December the Government announced that it would use part of the NOF for grants for library ICT projects. The press release of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the public library network is to become a key means of giving the information have-nots access to the benefits of education and training initiatives—welcome initiatives. But the situation in our public libraries is critical. At least 50 libraries are at risk of being shut. Barnsley plans to close 23 branch libraries. My own county of Surrey is reported to be closing 16 branch libraries, and Haringey, the Minister may note, may close two or three. Islington may cut its library service so that only

1695
five open at the weekends. Librarians say that the impending closures threaten to undermine the National Year of Reading and the drive to raise literacy levels among the young.
A spokesperson of the Library Association, Sherry Jespersen, said that,
"There is a huge gap between the government's vision for libraries and the reality of closures, reduced opening hours and cutbacks".
It is not much use a central government raiding the New Opportunities Fund of arts' and charities' money to put into grants for library projects if the libraries are being closed down by local government at a fast rate of knots.
I began by saying that there was one small crumb of comfort in the Secretary of State's speech yesterday; he did pledge that the Government would not raid the lottery again. But even if that pledge is kept, there are still manifest dangers in the passage of this order. The London firm of Farrer and Co. described those dangers graphically in its response to the Secretary of State's comprehensive spending review last year. It stated:
"We fear that there is a danger in the boundary between lottery funding and Grant-in-Aid becoming so blurred as to remove any tangible difference between the two".
It concluded that:
"the loss of any practical distinction between lottery funding and Grant-in-Aid and the tying of the process of lottery distribution more closely to the strategic priorities of the department will inevitably lead to the adoption of lottery funding as an adjunct to public spending. This may result in a consequential loss of public support for the lottery, which until now has been a highly successful means of raising funds for cultural initiatives".
The danger has been identified. The warning has been given. The passage of this order is a threat to the long-term health of the lottery.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that the draft report and order are excellent documents if one believes the underlying philosophy, which we do not. There is no point rehearsing the arguments; we have done that on numerous occasions and the Government will have their way. The Government have drawn away from the basic philosophy of the original lottery legislation and whether or not it is "raiding"—the noble Baroness used that word very effectively—
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I was merely quoting the Secretary of State.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, then the Secretary of State used the word "effectively". I shall not use it myself but there is no doubt that sports and the arts are underfunded in relation to those areas in many other countries and have suffered with this shift away by the Government from that which was generally agreed when the original lottery Bill went through both Houses of Parliament. But that is the way things have happened and there is nothing we can do with this order either.
My friends are now very interested in what is going on in this place for other reasons, and I tell them that our business here is amending and revising. But a lot of
1696
good it is amending and revising 60 per cent. of the time when more and more legislation comes through in this form. I understand from the White Paper that has been published on reform of the House that there is an intention that this House, however it is composed, will have even less say on legislation of this kind.
However, the original five causes have suffered. There is no getting away from that. Assuming the same input to the lottery during the first months of this year as was taken in the same period last year, each of the original five causes will lose around £47 million and receive only £20 million instead of the roughly £67 million that they should have received. On the other hand, the New Opportunities Fund will receive around £188 million more of the £244 million, instead of the £53.76 million it expected to receive.
Most of the beneficiaries of the fund—health, education and the environment—as we have argued before, should be government funded. We still hold to that view. They should not be funded from the lottery. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs particularly when the party of government so fully supported the original philosophy of the lottery—to support activities and areas of our national life that could not expect the right level of funding from normal government sources. The shift away from that philosophy has done no good. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I think that the country is the poorer as a result of the legislation and the draft order.
As to the millennium fund, the millennium dome has received in the region of £450 million. That amount does not appear to be included in any figures published by the Lottery Board or the Government, which is curious.
I shall not go further because that would be pointless. The order will happen, and sport and the arts will struggle as they have always struggled. The noble Lord who is answering the debate will do his best in those areas, as he always does. It is just a great pity that we could not have organised ourselves in such a way that the lottery would be dealt with by another department of state and we could have a proper champion for the arts. If only the great skill and eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could be used to champion the arts against another department that is trying to impose changes upon us, the country would be the richer.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I thank the Minister for introducing the order, and I will concentrate on one point. Basically, the lottery is a tax on the working class for the benefit of the middle class. The people who administer the lottery are becoming increasingly self-conscious about that fact. My honourable friends in the other place are vociferous in raising that issue and I welcome growing awareness by the Government of what is actually happening.
I became aware of the situation when, as vice-chairman of the BBC, I used to visit the regions and talk to staff in the news departments—particularly the people producing local news. They used to tell me about applications and failures, and it soon became clear

1697
that there was a dearth of money going into working-class areas. One might argue that that was anecdotal evidence, so today I approached Camelot to ascertain the facts. They were able to identify participants by social groups. They were groups A and B, 21 per cent.; group C1, 27 per cent.; group C2 24 per cent.; and groups D and E, 28 per cent. Note the nice, even balance, with the lowest figure being 21 per cent. and the highest 28 per cent. All groups seem to be doing well and are much the same. However, those percentages do not mean anything unless one knows the number in each group and the spend per head.
When I asked Camelot they said, "We no longer track the amounts spent on the lottery by different social groups. We did once but we stopped 12 to 18 months after the lottery began". I wonder why. I have a naturally suspicious mind, so I believe that one reason that those calculations slipped out of sight was that they blew the gaff and showed that some of the poorest people in the country were coughing up to improve the conditions of the extremely well off.
I have in the past raised in the House the question of how we have been bounced by the chattering classes into constitutional reform in which virtually no one has any interest. The Prime Minister said recently that we are all becoming middle class. That is a jolly good thing because the middle class know how to work the system. The need to provide matching funds makes it much easier for middle-class areas to raise matching funds and get lottery money. There is even the new profession of consultants who will advise groups on how to milk the lottery.
The middle class are familiar with lobbying and pressurising, so it is a natural extension to use consultants to get even more money. The working class, because of their traditions and so on, are not so familiar with such methods and are therefore suffering.
I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to improve the distribution of lottery funds between social groups. It is quite wrong to have a system that plays on the hopes of one class who are hoping for a material improvement in their conditions—and for whom the lottery is a major source of secondary poverty—but which actually benefits another class, who are already comfortably off and are just looking around for subsidised entertainment to enjoy in their leisure time. I hope that my noble friend will carry on with his efforts to make lottery fund distribution much more equitable.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House too long as we approach the unusually civilised hour at which the House is to rise this evening.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who comes to the House as well briefed as always. I also read the exchanges in Standing Committee in the other place last night, when the Secretary of State made the remarks to which my noble friend alluded and which persuaded me to speak this evening. Those remarks rather horrified me.
1698
I have no desire to enter the debate about the manner in which lottery funds are allocated or will be in future, and I do not want to score points on the theology behind the principle of additionality—which I had never heard of before reading the Standing Committee report. Nor do I question the desirability of specific projects on which the new opportunities fund will spend its money in the areas of health, education and the environment. On the face of it, those seem to be perfectly reasonable areas of expenditure for the Government to embark upon.
The nub of the matter is that however Ministers choose to portray them, those areas should, without a shadow of a doubt, benefit from mainstream government expenditure. In 1993—which seems a lifetime ago—when we started to talk in this House, in the other place and around the country about a national lottery, there were numerous debates about how and where the money should be spent. Everyone took a different view, undoubtedly slanted by their particular areas of interest. The one view that everyone had in common—none more resolutely than the then Labour Opposition—was that the fund should not be controlled by the Government and on no account should it be spent as a substitute for normal government expenditure.
Even those of us who did not like the lottery very much agreed that its purpose was to fund those things that, while worthy and desirable—such as sports, the arts, charities, national heritage and other areas—are difficult for government to fund directly for reasons we all know. What we have today is very different from that envisaged.
I have always been unhappy about the level of duty paid by the lottery to the Treasury. Few state or national lotteries that I know of pay tax to their governments—certainly not at the level imposed in the United Kingdom. I have always felt that the millennium fund is more a tool for inflating the egos of the politicians most closely involved with it and is of limited worth. However, the millennium fund was agreed by Parliament and I was personally comforted by the knowledge that it would not continue indefinitely. That comfort has evaporated with the advent of the new opportunities fund and the inflated amount that it has received at the expense of the original good causes.
The result, which no amount of clever accounting and persuasive debate can change, is that the Government now extract more money from the national lottery than any other state or national lottery in the world. The Government will have their order tonight because governments always do, but the Government should be in no doubt that their policy will widely and correctly be seen as extremely shabby and their conduct as dishonourable—both of which are to the detriment of the original and real good causes.
8.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Chris Smith and I learned a lesson yesterday and today that irony goes down very badly in either House of Parliament, particularly when what has been said is read in cold print after the event. Anybody who knows what

1699
happened yesterday knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State made a speech that had a text lasting perhaps 10 or 12 minutes, but which actually took three-quarters of an hour to deliver. The reason was that he was constantly attacked by a large number of Conservative Back-Benchers, not members of the committee, who went along to make and enjoy a show. Ironically, he said that there would be no further raid on that money. That is fine. The noble Baroness and the noble Viscount can make as much of a meal of it as they like. I do not begrudge them that.
However, that does not mean that any change in government policy is implied by the order. We are bringing into force something that we announced very early on. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who accused us of shabby and dishonourable conduct—those are the very words that he used—that the announcement being brought into effect by the order was made not only in the White Paper of July 1997, but also in a Labour Party document before the election when we made it absolutely clear to the electorate that we were going to do what we are doing now. We said that we were going to extend the provisions—the good causes of the lottery—from the arts, sport, heritage and charities to include initiatives in health, education and the environment.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord is correct when he says that. He always is. However, telling someone that you are going to behave badly does not make the behaviour better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to behaving badly, but that is very different from what he said before about behaving shabbily and dishonourably. He and I disagree about whether that is behaving badly. I shall give my reasons for thinking that that is not behaving badly. However, he cannot legitimately claim that the behaviour is shabby or dishonourable. I fundamentally reject—
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord misses the point that the original idea of the lottery was to fund those projects that could not be funded, or had difficulty in being funded, other than through direct taxation. My noble friend was raising the point that the lottery was being abused to fund those projects that should be funded from other sources.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I regret giving way to the noble Lord. He was not in the Chamber when I first spoke to the order. He has seriously misunderstood what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, because it is my duty, I shall attempt to answer all the points raised.
I fundamentally reject the view that somehow the expenditure of lottery money on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is good and that such expenditure on health, education and the environment is bad. I fundamentally reject the thinking behind that which is, and can only be, that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is
1700
expenditure which would not have come out of core government expenditure and that expenditure on initiatives on health, education and the environment is expenditure that would have come out of core government expenditure.
I take what I believe to be the more liberal view that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage and charities by government is an essential part of the range of activities that a government should support from their own resources—in other words, from taxpayers' money. Since the lottery was established, much more has been made possible by the availability of money for expanding activities, for funding new activities, and for the allocation of moneys in accordance with the principle of additionality. That is exactly the case—no noble Lord has challenged that—for the initiatives that we announced last year in health and education and for the new initiatives on health, education and the environment that I set out in only the broadest outline today, but which will come before your Lordships in the form of an order, before Easter, I hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gave the example of cancer care. We have given a good deal of detail of what is proposed for the cancer care initiative. That is not medical expenditure on the treatment of cancer. It relates to local work, in conjunction with, and in addition to, the vast amounts of money spent by charities on cancer care to improve the quality of delivery of cancer care treatment. Indeed, if that were not money additional to government expenditure, because it is so comparable to charitable money, the noble Baroness would be accusing the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, for example, of putting money into projects which should be paid for by taxpayers. She is not doing that. It is clear that the combination of charitable and lottery money (in adding to core government expenditure on cancer care) is legitimate and in line with the original intention of those who set up the National Lottery.
There is nothing in the argument that the new opportunities fund—I shall not say "NOF" if the noble Baroness does not like it—is drawing down extra money in advance whereas others have to wait for private, matching funding. Last year the National Lottery Act specifically and deliberately relaxed some of the conditions that the distributing bodies had imposed on expenditure by demanding private, matching funding. There is no difficulty in any of the existing good causes drawing down the money that they need. I made that clear in my opening speech.
The noble Baroness certainly has a point about local authority expenditure on libraries. I hasten to assure her that my circular from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the leader of my council, assures me that any cuts will not affect the libraries in Haringey. I do not know about the others, but it is certainly true that libraries in many parts of the country are having difficulties. Of course, the expenditure on libraries from the new opportunities fund, particularly for IT and IT training in libraries, is additional to anything which had been considered by this Government or any previous governments.

1701
I shall not trade definitions of "additionality". I have a whole series of them and I used them at excessive length when dealing with the National Lottery Bill. I believe that we have a more effective definition than the very narrow definitions which were used, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the previous government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that the original five good causes have suffered. I thought that I had made it quite clear that the original five good causes have not only received as much as they expected to receive when the National Lottery was set up under the first National Lottery Act, but, as a result of what is proposed today, they are receiving more than they had expected then. We are able to set up the new opportunities fund and NESTA because it has been proved that there is more money coming into the good causes from the National Lottery. It is simply not true to say that they have suffered. I cut out that bit of my speech that set out the exact distribution to the millennium fund, but I can confirm that the £2 billion for the millennium fund, to which I referred, includes the money for the Dome. However, the great bulk of funding for the millennium is for projects around the country rather than for the dome itself.
My noble friend Lord Cocks made a valid point when he said that the National Lottery is paid for disproportionately by poorer people and that in the past
1702
some of the National Lottery funds have gone to those who, as he put it, play the system. The National Lottery is not a tax and participation is voluntary. I do not know whether it consoles my noble friend to know that the average spend of household buying on on-line draw tickets twice a week is less than £6. Nevertheless, he has a valid point.
Let me give him an example of some of the ways in which poorer people do benefit from the existing good causes—from the grant of £70,000 to Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council in Bristol. It has got this £70,000 for access deliberately for poorer people for marriage guidance counselling. I know that will not reassure him fully, but I thought that at least he would recognise the example that I gave.
I think I have already replied to the claims of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on additionality. It is simply not the case that the five original good causes were sacrosanct. What we have done is to extend the benefits of additional funding which has become available from the National Lottery to a wider range of good causes. I persist in the view, as do the Government, that these are both to the benefit of the British people as a whole and they escape the charges which have been made by noble Lords opposite. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

  Operation Lifeline Sudan
  Operation Lifeline Sudan
  Peter Mandelson MP
  Peter Mandelson MP
  Geoffrey Robinson MP
  Geoffrey Robinson MP
  Ministerial Code: Ministers' Obligations
  Ministerial Code: Ministers' Obligations
  Swaffham Wind Farm
  Swaffham Wind Farm
  Russia: Trade Figures
  Russia: Trade Figures
  NHS Hearing Aids
  NHS Hearing Aids
  Drug Supply Offender Order Proposal
  Drug Supply Offender Order Proposal
  Chile: Home Secretary's Visit
  Chile: Home Secretary's Visit
  McGonnel v. United Kingdom
  McGonnel v. United Kingdom
  Immigration Staff at Airports
  Immigration Staff at Airports
  Female Prisoners in Prison
  Female Prisoners in Prison
  Female Prisoners on Home Detention Curfew
  Female Prisoners on Home Detention Curfew
  Immigrants: Grant and Refusal of Leave to Remain
  Immigrants: Grant and Refusal of Leave to Remain
  Immigrants: Grant and Refusal of Asylum
  Immigrants: Grant and Refusal of Asylum
  Illegal Immigrant Numbers
  Illegal Immigrant Numbers
  Firearms: Central Register
  Firearms: Central Register
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Tallin: British Embassy
  Tallin: British Embassy
  Indonesia: Arms Export Licences
  Indonesia: Arms Export Licences
  Trilateral Commission
  Trilateral Commission
  Private Military Companies: Control
  Private Military Companies: Control
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems
  British Citizens Detained Without Trial
  British Citizens Detained Without Trial
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Zinoviev Letter: Memorandum
  Zinoviev Letter: Memorandum
  Isokon Flats, Hampstead
  Isokon Flats, Hampstead
  Oliver Cromwell: Quatercentenary
  Oliver Cromwell: Quatercentenary
  Castle Urquhart
  Castle Urquhart
  Scottish Parliament: Use of Gaelic
  Scottish Parliament: Use of Gaelic
  BBC: Scottish Headquarters
  BBC: Scottish Headquarters
  Scotland: Shotgun Use
  Scotland: Shotgun Use
  Roadworks: Speed Incentives
  Roadworks: Speed Incentives
  Badger Culling
  Badger Culling
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Bovine TB
  Bovine TB