Sitting of 8 February 1999

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

    Pensions Green Paper
    Mr. David Borrow: What assessment he has made of the responses to the pensions Green Paper received to date. [68005]
    Mr. Tim Collins: How many responses to the Green Paper on pensions he has received to date. [68022]
    Mr. Edward Leigh: How many responses to the Green Paper on pensions he has received to date. [68024]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The pensions strategy set out in our Green Paper has received a great deal of support. We have received a number of written responses and expect to receive many more by the closing date, which is 31 March.
    Mr. Borrow: Thousands of my constituents who rely on income support will be substantially better off from
    2
    1 April, with the Labour Government's minimum income guarantee. However, many thousands more of my constituents rely on a mixture of modest savings and small pensions, and they are little, if at all, better off—and, in some cases, worse off—than pensioners on income support. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, under the proposals in his Green Paper, pensioners will be substantially better off in the future?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. From April, the minimum income guarantee will mean that a single pensioner will get at least £75 a week, and couples will get at least £116.60. He correctly identifies a problem that has existed in the social security system for many years, where pensioners may have a modest amount of savings and perhaps a small income. As I announced in December, the Government are studying that difficulty with a view to removing it, because we want to reward saving, and because saving should not be penalised.
    My hon. Friend asked a general question. Of course, one of the main objectives of the pensions Green Paper was to ensure that people who work throughout their lives have the opportunity to save, to the extent that they get a pension that is above benefit level. We intend to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Collins: Given that one of the Government's first actions, in their first Budget, was to take £5 billion a year from pensioners, will the White Paper give them that money back?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the best things that we can do to help pensioners now and in future is to create a climate of economic stability. Part of our objective in modernising the corporation tax regime was to ensure that companies were more profitable, which would benefit their shareholders, including pension funds and individual pensioners. We now have the lowest corporation tax ever, thanks to this

    3
    Labour Government; that is good for pensioners because it is good for the long-term profitability of the corporate sector.
    Mr. Leigh: Was it entirely fair to the general public to launch the Green Paper on pensions in December and then, last week, just two or three months later, to launch the lifelong individual savings account—a new form of pension saving—without any mention having been made of LISAs in the original document in December? Was that fair?
    Mr. Darling: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman did not read the Green Paper because, had he read it, he would have seen that it was clearly set out there that we were going to make a further announcement, adding a further option to stakeholder pensions. The important thing is—
    Mr. Leigh indicated dissent.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it was written in the Green Paper. He should read it rather than criticise it.
    The hon. Gentleman will also accept that the main thrust of our Green Paper was to give people as many choices as possible, to take account of changing labour market conditions and people's different requirements. As I said in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), our objective is to ensure that as many people as possible save, to enjoy a decent income in retirement.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Government publish a detailed analysis of all the responses to each of the Green Papers?
    Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend will know, yes we will. He knows that we have published all the responses to all the consultation exercises that we have carried out, including those to the two Green Papers that he had a hand in drafting. I believe that they are not in the Library because they are too bulky, but they are available, except when people have expressly said that they do not want their response to be made public. The analysis is, of course, taken into account when the Government develop their policy. Therefore, the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is that we are analysing the responses and publishing them in full.
    Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a glaring gap in his proposals as far as the self-employed are concerned? Does he also accept that the self-employed are unlikely to invest sufficiently in second-tier pensions for themselves unless there is at least an element of compulsion?
    Mr. Darling: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my statement on 15 December and whether he has read the Green Paper, because I explicitly said that the case for compelling the self-employed was stronger than that for compelling everyone else. We know that many self-employed people are not making provision for themselves. Part of the logic of introducing the
    4
    stakeholder pension, and of last week's announcement, is to give self-employed people more options than before, so that they have no excuse for not saving.
    If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what is said in the Green Paper and what I said in the statement, he will realise that the Government have been looking at everyone's pension needs because our objective is to end the current situation, whereby, as he knows, about one third of people now working would retire on benefit if we did nothing. That is not good enough.
    Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that, during last week's debate on pensions, a possible misinterpretation could have been put on the facts as to whether there was an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul in the state second pension. Can he confirm unequivocally that all those who will be on the state second pension will be better off—whether they are above or below the £9,000 divide—than they would have been on the state earnings-related pension scheme?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right because the new state second pension is not earnings related. Therefore, it disproportionately benefits those on low incomes as well as everybody on that part of his or her income below £9,000. The objective is to ensure that those on low pay will accumulate during their lifetime a decent pension on which to retire. Moderate earners will have the increased rebate, which they can take into their funded pension, which we believe will mean that they will be better off than otherwise.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Secretary of State was trying, retrospectively, to pretend that his Green Paper, which came out in December, was consistent with the Treasury's proposals for lifelong individual savings accounts, which came out last week. If that were the case, why does page 55 of the Green Paper state:
    "The legislation for stakeholder pension schemes will provide for schemes to be set up under trust law",
    whereas the Treasury's proposals last week explicitly excluded LISAs from being under trust law?
    Mr. Darling: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. We are legislating to provide for stakeholder pensions to be set up under trust law because without that legislation they could not exist. That is why we are introducing the legislation.
    The hon. Gentleman asked also about the proposals that were introduced last week. We are not legislating in that area because primary legislation is not needed to effect the proposals. That can be done by secondary legislation.
    I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to just about everyone else on the Conservative Benches that, if they read the papers before they spoke, they would be much better off.

    Benefit Vouchers
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has to review the payment of those benefits under which vouchers are issued to employees. [68006]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): In November 1998, we referred draft regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee to make non-cash vouchers subject to national insurance contributions, in the same way as cash earnings.
    After a period of consultation, the committee sent its report to the Secretary of State on 28 January 1999. We are considering the report and its recommendations and will respond in due course.
    Dr. Gibson: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the anomalies raised in the draft regulations became known as the Great Yarmouth anomaly. An unscrupulous employer at a care home was dodging national insurance contributions by paying in Asda vouchers. Does my hon. Friend consider that luncheon vouchers are in the same boat, as it were? After all, first they have never been considered to be part of wages and salaries. Secondly, their use would discriminate against people who do not have national insurance-free and tax-free canteens in their workplaces. Thirdly, it might lead to much unemployment in the catering industry.
    Mr. Timms: We announced during the summer of 1997 that we wanted to reduce the burden for business by bringing together the arrangements for income tax and national insurance. The Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Bill which will be considered by the House this afternoon is an example of that process.
    Where two people receive the same pay but one receives part of his pay in vouchers, there is no good reason why that person should pay less in national insurance than the other. My hon. Friend has made an important point. It has been possible for unscrupulous employers to avoid paying national insurance by paying part of people's pay in vouchers, thereby keeping the cash wage less than the lower limit for national insurance contributions. That keeps people outside the national insurance system and outside the protection of contributory benefits when they should be inside that system and within that protection.
    I believe that what we are proposing is right. I am aware that concern has been expressed about damage to the catering industry. However, I do not see any reason to expect a significant impact on people in that industry.
    Mr. Pickles: When considering those persons on benefit and those in receipt of vouchers, will the Government take into consideration the discussion that is now taking place between the Secretary of State and the Home Office about involving the benefit system in the penal system? Will those in receipt of vouchers be treated differently from those in receipt of general benefits? Will the benefits that are designed to support the family be affected? Are there other proposals to bring the penal system into the benefit system?
    Mr. Timms: As far as I know, people on probation are not in receipt of luncheon vouchers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in resolving the issue and coming forward with proposals in response to the report that we have received from the Social Security Advisory Committee, we shall take all relevant issues fully into account.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Syd Rapson: What assessment he has made of the responses to the Green Paper on tackling fraud in the benefit system. [68007]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The majority of responses supported the direction suggested in the Green Paper. As I announced on 14 January, we shall shortly publish our strategy for combating social security fraud in the light of those responses.
    Mr. Rapson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Green Paper? It is an excellent document, which emphasises that fraud, whether it be a fiddle or an organised gang stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds from the system, robs the poor and the vulnerable. Is my right hon. Friend therefore prepared to set tough targets for his Department, to ensure not only that such crime is detected, but that it is stopped?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the problem that we inherited is that far too much attention was devoted exclusively to the detection of fraud. Clearly, detecting fraud is of the utmost importance, but preventing fraud in the first place is just as important.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's kind remarks about the Green Paper, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is no doubt thinking, the credit is not due to me, as the Green Paper predates my arrival at the Department. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: On what basis do the Government state in the Green Paper that there is £7 billion-worth a year of fraud in the benefits system? Can he point to any initiative that the Government have taken in the past 21 months to tackle fraud in the social security system?
    Mr. Darling: On the latter point, lots. For example, just two weeks ago, we prevented the Royal Mail from redirecting mail in connection with housing benefit, which is one of the major sources of housing benefit fraud. Just before Christmas, I announced a £100 million initiative to get local authorities to check housing benefit claims properly. There is a list of steps that we have taken.
    The hon. Gentleman asks on what basis the Government say that fraud could involve, as the Green Paper stated, anything between £2 billion and £7 billion a year. Over the past few months, we have tried to ensure that we can accurately assess the amount of fraud and error in the system. The Green Paper highlighted the fact that, as a result of the system that we inherited, which was in desperate need of proper assessment, it is not always possible to say accurately how much fraud there is in the system.
    As I told the House a few moments ago, we shall publish our response to the Green Paper and set out how we intend to proceed. One of the matters that I shall deal with at that point is how we can accurately assess where the weaknesses are in the system, so that we can tackle them.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to comment on the

    7
    departmental document on family credit fraud, recently published by the Select Committee on Social Security, which shows that the family credit system is wide open to fraud? Although we understand that it was based on a pilot survey, and that statistically there are some doubts, it suggests major family credit fraud. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to tackle such fraud, and how are we building into the new working families tax credit defences against fraud, as suggested in the Green Paper on fraud?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that that preliminary study suggested that there were gaps in the safeguards in the family credit system, which have built up over a number of years. The findings were never published because the sample was so small that they were said not to be statistically accurate. Nevertheless, I decided that, as the Select Committee had asked to see them, they ought to be made available.
    I was happy to do that because, at the same time as we received the findings of that initial study, we put in the benefit fraud inspectorate to carry out a further check. As a result of that, a report has been prepared which I considered over the weekend and which I intend to publish later this week. It identifies weaknesses in the system, some of which have been dealt with while others will be dealt with.
    My hon. Friend is right—it is important that the working families tax credit works properly and that, if there are any difficulties with it, we deal with them now. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is seeing the report today. I am sure that she will want to address the safeguards that the Treasury is putting in place during the passage of the Tax Credits Bill through Parliament.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Given that one of the most sensitive areas of benefit fraud concerns the application of the cohabitation rules, and in the light of the overwhelming vote to equalise the age of consent, is the right hon. Gentleman considering equalising the effect of the cohabitation rules?
    Mr. Darling: I cannot say that we have any immediate plans to do that. I am aware of the difficulty in the cohabitation rule, and the right hon. Lady will be aware of it, too, because there is nothing new in it. Indeed, as I understood it, the previous Government were not inclined to do anything about the cohabitation rule either. This is a difficult issue, and something that we keep under review, but I cannot promise her that there is about to be an announcement. I do not think that there is.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the work of the Child Support Agency independent case examiner; and how many cases are currently pending a decision. [68008]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Child Support Agency's independent case examiner began work in April 1997. As at 31 December 1998, she had received a total of 2,193 applications. Of those, 416 are still awaiting a decision.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but was not the independent case examiner brought in
    8
    because the parliamentary ombudsman could not handle the vast number of cases that were referred to that department? Will she confirm that 40 members of staff in the independent case examiner's office are dealing with cases and that it has taken more than 17 weeks to process one case?
    Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in 1997–98, more than £1.1 million was paid in compensation? In the current year, the figure for compensation could exceed £3 million. Will she therefore take action to speed up the proposed changes to the Child Support Agency, to reduce the number of cases being referred to the independent case examiner and to reduce the amount of money—taxpayers' money—that is paid in compensation?
    Angela Eagle: It is absolutely true that the current system of child support maintenance assessment that we inherited from our predecessors requires, in some cases, up to 104 pieces of information to be gathered before an assessment can be made. Clearly, the answer to that lies in the simplification that the Green Paper on reforming the Child Support Agency suggests. I can tell my hon. Friend that 1,500 individuals and 80 organisations responded to the consultation and we hope to make a statement on the way forward soon.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister explain the basis of the Government's claim that 75 per cent. of absent parents and parents with care will be better off under the new system?
    Angela Eagle: First, one of the reasons why almost everyone will be better off is that the new system will work faster and people will get their maintenance. At the moment, 90 per cent. of CSA time is spent assessing maintenance rather than collecting it, so one of the big advantages of the new system will be a much streamlined, and more effective and efficient, way of getting the money to the parent with care.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [68011]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The minimum income guarantee will be delivered through income support. We plan a number of improvements to help those who are entitled to claim the guarantee to do so, for example by triggering claims at particular events when entitlement is likely to arise. We have also said that we will examine how we might reform the rules to reward better those who save for their retirement.
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, particularly because about 9,000 pensioners in my constituency will benefit from the minimum income guarantee. However, Age Concern and the citizens advice bureau have raised a number of concerns, some of which he has addressed, in respect of the fact that thousands of people are unaware of their entitlement to income support. They will therefore be unaware of their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee.

    9
    There is also the issue of the notional interest which is put on savings above £3,000. Is my hon. Friend looking at that matter as well as the other issues that he has outlined?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is quite right. We estimate that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners eligible for the minimum income guarantee are not currently claiming income support. Pensioners who are not initially eligible for the guarantee are most likely to become eligible when they reach 75 or 80, or when they start to receive attendance allowance, because, at that point, a higher premium becomes payable and another group of people comes within the scope of the guarantee. We are looking at how to trigger claims from those people automatically at those points, and at other measures that could encourage people to come forward, including a take-up publicity campaign which we hope to run later in the year.
    My hon. Friend is also right in that we intend to consider the current rules on savings, which prevent some people who would otherwise benefit from the minimum income guarantee from doing so. We want to produce proposals during this Parliament to address that issue as well.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State referred to the anomaly whereby people who have saved modest amounts or who have small pensions are penalised by the existing benefits system. In considering the minimum income guarantee, will the Minister confirm that, as it stands, the number of such people will be greatly increased, and that disincentives to save for pensions will become still greater? Will he also confirm that it will take more than tinkering with this proposal to remove the considerably increased disincentive to save for pensions?
    Mr. Timms: The question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is: does he agree that even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity? Of course, it would be possible to increase the guarantee only in line with prices to keep it at a lower level. That would reduce the number of people benefiting from it, and it would also leave a large number of pensioners stranded on lower incomes than they should be receiving. We are committed to security and a decent income for all in retirement. My right hon. Friend has made it clear—and it is spelled out in the Green Paper—that we are looking into the amount of savings people can have before they become ineligible for the minimum income guarantee, and we shall produce proposals to address that issue.
    Mr. David Winnick: Do I take it that the minimum guarantee does not exclude other matters? Is my hon. Friend aware that I am pursuing the case of one of my constituents, who is 79, very unwell—that is not in dispute—has been housebound for three years and has been refused a social fund grant for a mobility chair? Will he give me a promise that, once Question Time is over, he will investigate this matter carefully? The reply that I have received stated that the case has gone through
    10
    review and has been rejected. That is totally unsatisfactory. I want justice for my 79-year-old constituent, and I want it very soon indeed.
    Mr. Timms: I was not previously aware of the details of my hon. Friend's case, but I should be delighted to look into it if he would write to me about it.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Government want people on £10,000 a year to take out stakeholder pensions, but will not require them to put anything in beyond their rebates. If someone on £10,000 a year puts in just his national insurance rebates at the start of his working life, will he reach retirement needing to depend on the minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. Timms: No. The state second pension has been designed to ensure that everyone who is in it will, when he gets to retirement age, have an income above the minimum income guarantee level. People earning more than £9,000 who choose to move into a stakeholder pension should also be above that level. We hope that stakeholder pensions will ensure that people who contribute to them and receive them are above—well above in most cases—the minimum income guarantee level when they retire.
    Gillian Merron: How do the measures that the Government are introducing to support pensioners, such as the minimum income guarantee, compare with what would have happened had the link with earnings been restored?
    Mr. Timms: The restoration of the link with earnings would have been an extremely expensive measure. We have chosen to concentrate help on those who need it most. The minimum income guarantee allows us, from April, to offer pensioners dependent on income support an increase in their income three times the rate of inflation. That is a significant boost for the pensioners who need it most.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Simon Burns: How many lone parents have been sent a letter about the new deal for lone parents since July 1997; and how many of these (a) have received a job and (b) remain in that job under the scheme. [68012]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Up to 25 December 1998, 88,662 initial letters had been sent to lone parents. Information on the number of lone parents who have been sent letters and who have subsequently found a job and on the proportion remaining in work will not be available until the full evaluation of the prototype phase, which is due to be published in the autumn.
    What we do know is that the new deal is helping lone parents into work. By 25 December 1998, 27,231 lone parents had decided to join the programme, of whom 5,881 had found jobs.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Minister accept that I find her answer rather lame and surprising, given that the

    11
    Government—certainly until last summer—have always answered this question in written form, month on month? Did the Minister sidestep this issue because the figures show that almost 66 per cent. of people who receive a letter throw it away, and only about 7 per cent. of people find jobs, at a cost of £15,000 per job? The number of people who stay in a job long term is less than the 5,881 figure that the Minister gave, which shows a success rate of slightly less than 5 per cent.
    Angela Eagle: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. We do not know how many people who now have jobs took advantage of the new deal because they received the letter, and how many did so because—[Interruption.] That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. He will find that I have answered the question accurately, as you require us to do, Madam Speaker. Until the end of the pilot scheme, we shall not be able to distinguish between those who took advantage of the new deal following receipt of the letter, and those who went along to the office because, for instance, they had seen advertisements. The hon. Gentleman will have a final answer then; meanwhile, I can confirm that we shall continue to publish results for him monthly.
    I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather pessimistic view of the results so far. Indeed, given that he was a member of a Government who did nothing but abuse lone parents for 18 years, I find his attitude incomprehensible.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The success of the new deal for lone parents is shown not just by the number of lone parents who have returned to work, but by the cultural change that has taken place in the attitude to people on benefits. Personal advisers have advised lone parents on whether to stay on benefit or take up work, depending on which pays. Does that not constitute a dramatic change from the attitude of the Conservatives, who, when they were in power, described lone parents as scroungers?
    Angela Eagle: I could not agree more. We should remember that some lone parents have been out of the work force for a long time. If we can get such people into training, or make it possible for them to contemplate looking for a job when their children reach a certain age, that will be a positive outcome of the new deal. It is not simply aimed at people who can go into jobs immediately.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Did not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) show that the whole scheme has now failed? She has told us that, in fact, the Government have a strike rate of marginally above 5 per cent. in terms of people returning to work, and that the cost is £15,000 a job. Is it not the case that over the past two years, instead of looking properly at the programme and realising the direction in which it was heading, the Government have failed to take account of the problems?
    Most important, will the Minister now undertake to reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question: what is the fall-out rate after six months? The results have been published month on month, and the rate has risen to as high as 23 per cent. Now the Department has written to
    12
    us saying that it will not answer the question, because the cost would be disproportionate. What has the Department got to hide?
    Angela Eagle: I find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman can dismiss the fact that nearly 6,000 lone parents now have jobs and are able to support children in poverty. Part of the Conservative Government's legacy was the fact that almost one child in three was born into poverty. We are determined to do something about that, and this is a way of doing it.

    Single Gateway
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on his Department's role in the single work-focused gateway. [68013]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): This Department and the Department for Education and Employment have joint responsibility for the delivery of the single work-focused gateway. Both Departments are working together to develop a more integrated and work-focused service for benefit claimants.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's view that work is the best form of welfare is generally shared? Does she also agree that many people in my constituency, including disabled people, have hitherto felt discouraged from working, and will see a fresh opportunity in the new single gateway? Is it not important for personal advisers to be trained adequately for their important task, and should we not proceed in the pilot areas, focusing attention on where help is needed, as quickly as possible?
    Angela Eagle: We must deal sensitively with people with disabilities who may be entering the labour market for the first time. Research shows, however, that nearly 1 million people with disabilities want a chance to participate in that market. [Interruption.] Rather than sneering, the Conservative party should give us some credit for trying to include those people in society.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the hon. Lady agree that personal advisers will have a crucial role? I understand that parts of the Vale of York and City of York will fall within the pilot scheme. What will the precise role of the personal adviser be? How many of them will there be? What will the cost to the taxpayer be? The Minister touched on the role of disability benefits. Can she assure me that no disabled person will have benefit removed because he or she is not able to access the interview on the first date given?
    Angela Eagle: The idea is to pass on to the benefits system some of the important lessons that we have learnt in implementing the new deal, where the role of the personal adviser has been much appreciated by people who have been through that training. The idea is for the personal adviser both to ensure that the correct benefits are claimed and to investigate pathways to independence for the person who is having the interview. The pilots will take place initially in 12 areas. The cost set aside for running the 12 gateway pilots is £80 million.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: What increase in his Department's budget he expects between financial years 1997–98 and 2001–02 attributable to decisions made since 1 May 1997. [68014]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Social security spending is growing at less than half the rate under the previous Parliament. Our plans are prudent and address the real needs of families and the poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Lansley: Does the Secretary of State understand that I am disappointed that, in his answer, he did not recognise that social security spending will rise by £37 billion in the next three years? Will he confirm that about one third of that increase is directly attributable to Government decisions since May 1997? Will he further recognise that that runs directly counter to the Government's manifesto promise that they would
    "break the spiral of escalating spending on social security"?
    Mr. Darling: I am delighted to help the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that, of the increase in spending, some £12 billion will go towards supporting pensioners, some £7 billion will go towards supporting disabled people and carers and a further £7 billion will go to families and children, with a record increase in child support. If he is telling us that the Conservatives are against all those things, I am sure that pensioners, disabled people, their carers and families with young children will begin to wonder what on earth the Conservative party is all about.
    Social security spending is now growing at half the rate that it was under the last Parliament over which the Conservatives presided. We are getting the social security system under control. We are tightening the gateways to benefit; we are tightening our offensive against fraud. We are cutting the bills of economic failure, which we promised to do in our manifesto, and getting more people into work. What we have is a modern, effective and manageable social security system. At the same time, we are helping the most vulnerable people in society, whom the Conservatives neglected for years.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Would the Secretary of State like to explain the difference between the proportion of the social security budget that is being spent on failure and joblessness, and the proportion that was spent under the previous Government? How have our policies shifted that proportion?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If people follow the exchange of questions, it will be increasingly obvious that the Conservative party has little interest in doing anything to help people to get off benefit and into work. We have announced a range of proposals. The single gateway into the benefit system will mean that, for the first time, everyone of working age will come through a gateway and be advised on how to get back into work, as well as to their entitlement if they are not able to work. We attach considerable importance to doing that because that is the way in which to cut the bills
    14
    of economic failure. By doing that, we can do far more for those who need security and who look to the Government to help them.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Has the Secretary of State had a chance yet to study the recent work by the London school of economics, which examines the hitherto unknown proportion of people who are above the age of 55, are out of work and can be helped back into work by sensible targeting of the new welfare-to-work proposals? If there are some extra pockets of money that he can find, will he give priority to trying to help that group of the population into work? The LSE's work shows that much can be done to try to help that cohort of the population.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many people over 50 are capable of work, but sometimes find themselves out of work, and they are beginning to wonder whether life has passed them by. The Government attach considerable importance to ensuring that everyone who can work does so. We shall look at what further action we can take to encourage not only that group of people, but others to get into work.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the point, quite simply, is that the Government were elected on a pledge—in which the Prime Minister was to the forefront—to cut social security spending? The Prime Minister made the pledge not once, but two or even three times. Now, we notice that Ministers never want to repeat the pledge, as they are clearly failing to keep it. Surely the admission that, next year, as a direct result of the Government's activities, social security expenditure is likely to rise by about 4 per cent. explains why Ministers are scrabbling round, trying to tax child benefit and penalise married couples—who have declared an obvious relationship and who will suffer directly as a result of the Government's policies. Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that, by increasing spending, the Government have changed the policies that they promised, during the general election, to pursue? Ministers have admitted the increase, and they have failed in their pledge.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is quite wrong about that. He was at it again this morning, on the "Today" programme. Half what the Department of Social Security spends goes on pensioners; about 10 per cent. goes on families and children; and about a quarter goes to sick and disabled people. At the general election, we said that we would cut the bills of economic failure, and we are doing that. At the general election, we promised that we would do more for pensioners, and we are doing that. We also said that we would do more to support families and children, and we are doing that with a record child benefit increase. We also said at the general election that we would do more to help sick and disabled people, and their carers. Later today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will be making a statement on that matter, to deliver yet another manifesto promise.
    The point—I appreciate that Conservative Members find it difficult to understand—is that this Labour Government have kept each and every one of our promises. We have a social security system that is

    15
    manageable, affordable and equipped to meet the needs of the United Kingdom, both now and in the future. Conservative Members will just have to face up to that fact. If they disagree with what we are doing, let them tell us whether they want to cut pensions, support for families or support for the disabled. If they cannot answer that question, they really should keep quiet.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the habitual residence test. [68015]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Our review of the habitual residence test is on-going. We shall make our recommendations for its future once we have received and considered the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Mr. Robin Swaddling, which is due to be given on 25 February.
    Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she concerned by claims that, although the Government save about £30 million annually by refusing claimants under the habitual residence test, an almost equivalent amount is paid out to families facing destitution under the Children Acts and the National Assistance Act 1948? Moreover, many people on benefit are discouraged from seeking employment in the European Union because of the risk of losing benefit when they return. Will the review take those two points into consideration?
    Angela Eagle: We should remember that 89 per cent. of United Kingdom nationals who take the test pass it, and that 85 per cent. of all those who take it pass it. My hon. Friend will remember as well as I do the test's origin—a certain singalong performance at Tory party conference a few years ago. We shall consider the points that she has raised—especially in the light of the European Court of Justice statement, on 25 February—and continue to investigate how best we can balance the right of United Kingdom taxpayers not to subsidise people with very little connection to the United Kingdom with the understandable rights of United Kingdom citizens.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady consider that issuing identity cards would make that type of work much easier?
    Angela Eagle: The identity card issue is really one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, on the habitual residence test, the benefit of changing policy to quite the extent suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    Consultation Papers
    Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will publish summaries of responses to his Department's consultation papers. [68016]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Lists of those organisations and academics who responded to our consultation papers, excluding those who requested
    16
    confidentiality, have been placed in the House Libraries. Copies of their responses are available on request from the Department.
    Dr. Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that submissions to Government consultations are all read, that his Department collates them and that an assessment is prepared for Ministers' consideration? If that information is readily available—as one would expect, otherwise Government consultations would be shown to be a sham—and the Government are committed to openness and transparency, what is the problem with publishing it? Will he publish his Department's assessment of responses to Green Papers, including the important welfare reform Green Paper?
    Mr. Bayley: All the responses are read and considered by the Government; they inform Ministers' decisions. Summaries of the sort that my hon. Friend suggests are not prepared for Ministers. Any summary that the Government published could not give a totally balanced view. It would inevitably be open to the criticism that some important comments had been excluded or that a Government gloss had been put on others. We believe that all the comments should be available. I believe that my hon. Friend has requested copies of 49 of the submissions that have been made. We can make them available to others who request them.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Is the Minister aware of the responses made to his paper proposing changes to disability benefits by representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium at a meeting in the House before Christmas? The Government's proposals to means-test incapacity benefit were described as a betrayal and one disabled person said that he was incensed that, although the Government were encouraging him to save for a pension—which is often difficult, given that a disabled person may not have the same working pattern as others—he would now find them putting their hands into his pocket and taking some of that money away. Will not the Government's proposals result in some disabled people having their incapacity benefit cut and many failing to qualify for it? If he does not receive summaries of all the responses to his Green Paper, can the Minister be sure that he has taken all the comments into account? If he does not, what kind of consultation is it?
    Mr. Bayley: I have read the consortium's views. I should be a foolish Minister not to do so when forming an opinion on the views that have been submitted. It would not be sufficient simply to look at a summary. One needs to consider the whole document.
    The changes to incapacity benefit are an attempt to modernise the system and target resources where they are most needed. The majority of people save for their retirement through a pension. Some 86 per cent. of men in full-time jobs and 77 per cent. of women in full-time jobs do so, as do a far higher proportion of women in part-time jobs than was the case when out-of-work sickness benefits were introduced. It is not sensible to ignore the provision that people have made for themselves. Those who make their own provision will be considerably better off. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) always talks about means testing. He is as wrong now as he has been in the two recent debates.

    Savings (Retirement)
    Mr. Ian Pearson: What proposals he has to encourage saving for retirement. [68017]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The reforms described in the pensions Green Paper published on 15 December should raise the incentives to voluntary saving through better-quality, better-value second pensions and restructured state support.
    Mr. Pearson: I congratulate the Government on the pensions Green Paper. It is about time that someone grasped the nettle of modernising this country's pensions industry. I am confident that the proposed new framework will be a major improvement. When working out the detail, will my hon. Friend ensure that those who change their jobs frequently or take career breaks are not penalised and are given effective options? Will he also ensure that the Government lead the way and build in a right to an employer contribution to a pension plan for any employment funded indirectly through grants, such as the single regeneration budget programme?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. There has long been a need for the changes that we have proposed. For far too many people, a good-value funded pension—or one that they can access on reasonable terms—is not available, and they are exactly the people at whom the stakeholder pension is aimed. We are committed to ensuring that everybody who can afford to save for retirement should have every encouragement to do so, and the proposed framework will have that effect. I will be happy to have a look at the question of the single regeneration budget, to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the combination of the guaranteed minimum pension and the increase in means testing will mean that many people who have saved for their retirement will be worse off than people who have made no provision for themselves at all? The Secretary of State may shake his head and Ministers may duck and weave, but that is a fact, and the Government are creating a monstrously unfair system. Is the Minister aware that, when people look behind the bland words of Ministers and see the facts, they will be deeply resentful?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The aim of the framework proposals is that those who are able to save should do so, but that there should be security for those who are not able to save. The state second pension is a 100 per cent. contributory scheme which will ensure that everyone who has worked and contributed throughout his or her life will retire on an income above the minimum income guarantee level, which will mean that he or she has the full benefit of all their savings. There is no disincentive to save; we are increasing the incentive to save. I hope that Conservative Members agree that even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend reassure those on low and modest incomes
    18
    that the Government's proposals for modernising pensions will target them, and afford them the same support that the vast majority of people in this country get at the moment?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. The state second pension will provide modernised support for people on low incomes, and will double the accrual rate on the state pension for people on £9,000 a year. It will treat people on incomes below that level as if they had been earning £9,000 a year throughout their working lives. That will be done on the basis of the existing 4.6 per cent. state earnings-related pension scheme contribution, without any addition. That is a very important step forward for people on low earnings—those about whom my hon. Friend is rightly concerned.

    Welfare Reforms
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans he has to ensure that his welfare reforms encourage self-reliance. [68018]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are building a modern welfare state, based on rights and responsibilities. We are actively providing opportunities and incentives to help people into work and to provide for themselves, and we are ensuring that work pays while providing security for those who cannot work.
    Mr. Swayne: Although we can continue to debate the consequences of means testing, does the Secretary of State accept that the minimum pension guarantee will lead inevitably to an increase in means testing?
    Mr. Darling: The logic of what Conservative Members are saying is that we should withdraw support altogether from people who have not managed to save any money. We do not believe that the prospect of leaving pensioners, or anyone else, destitute is acceptable. One of the problems that we have inherited is that a third of people who are now working are retiring on benefit. Over the years, the poorest pensioners have suffered a great deal, and we have introduced the minimum pension guarantee to help those who have nothing. We are providing also a guarantee for the poorest disabled people. Most people who look at what we are doing will realise that we are doing the right thing by those people.
    We are proposing a framework that will mean that the majority of people who are working will accrue enough of a pension during their working life to retire on a decent income. In the pensions Green Paper, we have a coherent and workable strategy, which will mean that all those who can work throughout their lives and can save will retire on a decent pension. At the same time, we will not turn our backs on those who are unable to save, as the Opposition appear to be urging us to do.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Do not high rents and high housing benefit payments totally undermine self-reliance? Is not the real answer to the problem to find a way of dramatically cutting rents in this country?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that the housing benefit regime is in need of reform, and he is no

    19
    doubt aware that the Government are considering how to improve the situation, but he must recognise that the system that we inherited has grown up over about 25 years, and that it will be some time before we can announce our conclusions on how to implement that reform.
    Mr. John Bercow: Further to the very pertinent inquiries from my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), why will not the Secretary of State, instead of blathering, simply admit the obvious truth—that the Government's pension proposals will massively increase means testing at the lower end of the scale, discouraging savings at the margins? He must surely admit that, in that sense, the policy that he advocates will be a penalty for self-reliance and not a reward.
    Mr. Darling: I do not accept that at all. The whole strategy behind the Green Paper is to ensure that as many people as possible have the choice to save for their retirement. The hon. Gentleman will have to face up to the fact that without a change of policy, a third of people currently working would retire on benefit. The Government have decided that the policy needs to change, to ensure that, if people work for a lifetime, they can save and retire on a pension that is above means-tested income support. We believe that that is of considerable importance, but we will not turn our backs on those poorest pensioners who, for one reason or another, have not been able to save for their retirement. We have a comprehensive strategy for pensions, which the previous Government did absolutely nothing about for 18 years.

    Benefit Integrity Project
    Maria Eagle: What recent representations he has received on the benefit integrity project. [68019]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have received representations on various aspects of the benefit integrity project, from a variety of sources, including through discussions with the disability benefits forum. We have listened to those representations. On 28 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the project would be cancelled from 31 March 1999 and replaced with a new, fairer system of periodic review.
    Maria Eagle: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, and many of my constituents who have come across the benefit integrity project will be grateful for its abolition, but they will also be concerned about what is to replace it. Can he assure the House that the new review system will deal much more with the individual needs of claimants instead of simply trying to force everybody on to the same form, creating all kinds of problems?
    Mr. Bayley: Yes, we can give that assurance. The new system will be fairer because, unlike the system that we
    20
    inherited from the Conservatives, it will allow benefits to be increased as well as decreased. It most certainly will consider the claimant's individual needs; the agency will have a much more personalised approach. The review process that we inherited for the benefit integrity project was designed by the Conservatives; we are developing the new process in consultation with the disability lobby, through members of that lobby on the disability benefits forum.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I understand that Ministers have said that some people are receiving disability living allowance who apparently have no medical reason for doing so. What is the Minister's estimate of the number involved, and how great is the problem?
    Mr. Bayley: In perhaps about a third of the cases reviewed, the evidence was not there. I cannot be more precise than that because, as the hon. Lady will know, some cases are still under review through the adjudication system and the appeals system.

    Personal Advisers
    Mr. Tony McNulty: If he will make a statement on the role of personal advisers in his plans for welfare reform. [68026]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Personal advisers currently operate successfully in the various new deals and have demonstrated that they can make an important and successful contribution, in assisting people to move towards the world of work and increase their independence. Under our proposals for a single work-focused gateway into the benefit system, all working-age claimants will be provided with a personal adviser, who will work with them to assess their job potential and provide access to a variety of help and information on work, benefits and services.
    Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the success of personal advisers in the new deal, will he assure me that personal advisers for the single gateway get the resources that they need for such a demanding job? While I am on my feet, will he ignore totally the carping and whingeing of Conservative Members, who giggled like schoolchildren when personal advisers and the success that they have achieved were mentioned earlier?
    Mr. Bayley: It is important that personal advisers should be well trained for the demanding task that they face—and they will be well trained. They are making an important impact. The pilot schemes are at a fairly early stage and the lessons that we learn from them will help us to improve the training further.

Carers
3.30 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the publication today of the Government's national strategy for carers. You will be aware that some details of our proposals are now in the public domain. It was our intention to publish an answer to a question this morning but, due to an administrative error, that did not prove possible. No discourtesy was intended to the House, and I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford).
The Prime Minister, on 10 June 1998, announced plans for a national strategy for carers, which he asked me to lead. The Government believe, as the Prime Minister himself said last June, that carers play a vital role in the community and also in supporting families. The national health service and social services could never hope to provide what carers contribute to the care of the sick and the vulnerable. The Government are determined to see that carers get the support that they need.
The Prime Minister said that the national strategy should bring together existing initiatives into a single package for the first time. We have done more than that. As I shall explain, we are announcing today a substantial new policy package for carers.
The work on the national strategy for carers has involved a large number of organisations—not only Government Departments and people from the NHS and local authorities, but individual carers, representatives of carers' organisations, and representatives of more specialised voluntary organisations which, for example, help people with mental health problems. We are grateful to all those who joined working groups and to those who attended a major consultative conference on the strategy held last November. I was glad to welcome to that conference hon. Members from both sides of the House, as well as Members of the House of Lords.
The policies of a large number of Government Departments impact on carers. The document published today involves all of them. We held, for the first time, two meetings of a ministerial group specifically established to consider carers' issues.
People who provide care for relatives or friends who are disabled, vulnerable or frail can devote large parts of their own lives to looking after others. Many of them are also in paid work. The majority of carers are women. All of them need some help and support. Our national strategy for carers describes what we have been doing, and what we are going to do. Carers will have better information; they will be better supported; they will be cared for better themselves.
Two thirds of carers of working age are in paid employment. For many of them, combining work with caring can be difficult. The Government's family-friendly employment strategy will help them. We will give carers the right to time off to deal with a family emergency. For example, a carer might need time to take his or her elderly parent to hospital, following a fall. The Second Reading of the necessary legislation, the Employment Relations Bill, is scheduled for tomorrow.
We have also considered carers who cannot combine paid work with caring. Many carers of working age would like to do so. Even more would like to be able to return
22
to work when their caring responsibilities come to an end. We will consider the scope for extending the new deal to help carers to return to work. We will publicise the benefits—to employers, as well as to carers—of flexible, carer-friendly employment policies. We will consider our own position as a major employer and make sure that we set the highest standards for carers working in the public sector.
Carers also need support from the statutory services. That does not mean social services alone—all services need to provide carers with information and to involve them in the planning of services. Only in that way can services be more responsive to carers' needs.
The national health service has an important role in that respect. It must help carers to maintain their own health: half of all carers in a recent study said they had suffered from a physical injury since they began to care; and half said that they had been treated for stress-related illnesses. The Government's national priorities guidance to health and local authorities will require those authorities to help carers to maintain their health and emotional well-being.
The national health service must also provide information to help carers to care. They need to know about the health needs, treatment and medication of the person for whom they care. Of course, that can be done only with the consent of the patient, but sometimes doctors do not ask or explore that option. It is vital that patients' agreement be sought, and we believe that doctors should always do so.
We have already announced an extra £750 million for local authorities over the next three years to help them to promote independence, especially through greater partnership with the health service on prevention and rehabilitation. People who need care and their carers will benefit from that.
We are going further, by providing from within the comprehensive spending review plans £140 million of additional funding for England over the next three years specifically to help carers. It will be a ring-fenced special grant that will go to local authorities to extend the range of services that they provide to give carers a break from their caring responsibilities. The research evidence shows that carers who have a break are better able to cope and that their own health suffers less. The new special grant will total £20 million in 1999–2000, £50 million in 2000–2001, and £70 million in 2001–2002.
We also intend, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce new legislation to extend the powers that local authorities have to address carers' needs directly. At the moment, the focus of most of the legislation is on the person needing care. We want carers to have more control over the form and timing of the services that they need as carers. That is especially true of services designed to give them a break from caring.
The national strategy will also help some specific groups of carers. First, we are announcing today that there will be a reduction in council tax for some disabled people. Those who live in accommodation that is valued at band A and that has an extra room which they need because of their disability, or enough floor space to allow them to move around in a wheelchair, will receive a reduction in council tax similar to what is given now for the other bands. That change will be made from 1 April 2000. It is long overdue and it is only fair.

23
Secondly, we have particular concerns about young carers. The Government are taking extensive action to offer new help to children and young people and we are placing particular emphasis on supporting the most disadvantaged children and their families. Children who have to provide personal care to a parent may not even realise they are carers, but their attendance at school can suffer; they can also have difficulty doing their homework; and they often have no time for leisure, for play, or to meet their friends.
The Government will promote awareness of the needs of young carers. We shall encourage schools to make sure that there is someone to support them. That need not be a teacher—it could be someone else with the right skills and the time to develop special expertise. Children who are carers might need help to contact professionals in the health service, the social services, or a local project worker specifically for young carers. They need help and they need someone who is there for them.
There is also a group of children who need more care than other children of the same age. Their parents are especially in need of help and support: for example, they might feel unable to spend enough time with the rest of their family. We are increasing the help and support we provide to parents of a disabled child. We have already announced new objectives for children's services, which require local and health authorities to work together to meet the needs of disabled children.
Social services will get an extra £375 million to help them to meet the needs of vulnerable children. We are also introducing new children's nursing teams, in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, to support those children who have life-threatening health problems. Those will cost £2 million a year initially, and we are establishing 10 teams around the country.
Many carers need help and support in the neighbourhoods where they live. In general, we believe that this is best provided by voluntary organisations. They are doing some wonderful work which, in the course of preparing the strategy, I was privileged to travel around the country and see at first hand. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware of that work in their constituencies. Carers' centres are but one example. They already exist in a number of areas and we want to make sure that all carers have access to a support service near where they live. The national strategy report also describes how we intend to make sure that carers get a high-quality service from such carers' centres.
The national strategy for carers contains a great deal of information about carers and their needs, but we lack information in some cases. That is why we will introduce a new question about carers in the 2001 census. The results of that new question will tell us, for example, how many carers are in each local authority area. The information will allow local authorities to plan much better how to provide services for carers in order to meet their needs.
The Government believe that what carers do should be properly recognised and supported. We—the Government—and the whole country should take pride in carers. The Government are determined to make sure that
24
carers can feel proud of what they do and of a society that recognises the debt of gratitude that we all owe them for doing it.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of it in good time. The Opposition welcome any additional support for carers—the great silent army that, quite literally, props up our social care system. We believe that the family is the best mechanism for delivering support to the elderly, the disabled and the frail wherever that is a practical reality.
To support those family carers who give of their time so selflessly is not only a moral obligation on society but the most basic form of economic common sense. Care in the family, where that is possible, is often the best solution for a vulnerable person and for society as a whole. However, we recognise that those benefits have too often been at the expense of the carers. We welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but as so often, there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. Much of the statement is a recycling of announcements that have already been made, and still more of it consists of an announcement of further consultation.
Carers come in all shapes and sizes and we cannot generalise about them. However, we know that the majority are women, many of whom are married. The Government's tax and benefits policies have hit single-earner couples—who already bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden—particularly hard. Should the Government not consider the advantages of transferable tax allowances to ease the burden on those couples where one partner voluntarily gives up the opportunity to earn in order to take on a caring responsibility?
Many carers are pensioners and still more are seeking to make pension arrangements for their retirement while continuing their caring responsibility. The Government have announced a further consultation on second pensions for carers that might lead to carers being £50 or so better off in 2050. At the same time, the Government have hit all pensioners with their £5 billion pension tax and the poorest small savers—of which 300,000 are pensioners-through their mean-minded abolition of dividend tax credits for non-taxpayers.
It is a case of jam tomorrow and nothing today. Which generation of carers is the Government's policy supposed to help? What can the hon. Gentleman say to carers who are 40, 50 or 60 today and have made inadequate provision for their retirement?
The hon. Gentleman has recycled earlier announcements of £750 million for promoting independence and £375 million for vulnerable children. The rhetoric from the Dispatch Box about the improved co-operation between health and social services, the legal duties of partnerships, and the demolition of Berlin walls sounds impressive, but health authorities and social services departments, certainly in London and the south-east, are experiencing squeezed budgets—the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric will ring hollow there. With the best will in the world, the grand vision cannot be realised in areas where the resources available are under concerted attack by the Government.
The ring-fenced special grant for respite care is welcome. The chance of a break from their responsibilities is probably the need most often cited by

25
carers, but in many areas, social services departments and health authorities are already cutting back on the support that they are able to give to the voluntary sector. So long as budgets are under such pressure, how can the Minister ensure that the ring-fenced grant does not merely substitute for existing funding, often via voluntary organisations that currently provide respite care?
I have a couple of specific questions, and I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for responses to them. I particularly welcome his reference to young carers. Many young carers projects are doing excellent work throughout the country but are precariously funded. Local authorities facing difficulties of their own are often unable to fund worthwhile voluntary organisations. For example, the joint finance funding that supports the Sheffield young carers project will run out in March 2000 and the national lottery grant that supports the project will run out in September 2000. There will be no more joint finance for that project because the Government have abolished joint finance from next year.
What assurance will the Minister give the Sheffield young carers project about the security of its funding for the future? Will the Minister identify where the additional funding that he has announced today for the ring-fenced grant will come from? How much will come from sums that have already been announced within other spending totals, and how much is new money?
We welcome the emphasis that the Minister placed on carer-friendly employment policies. Do the Government have concrete proposals specifically dealing with carers to encourage such policies on the part of employers, public and private; or will the hon. Gentleman rely on exhortation?
There was no mention in the statement of training for carers, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is important. I should be grateful for his comments on support for training for carers.
We welcome the focus that the statement places on the needs of carers. We support the principles that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but in many cases and for many people, what he has announced today gives back with one hand what the Government have already taken away with the other. How will the fine words translate through the mechanisms of budgets, health authorities and social services departments into benefits for carers?
Mr. Boateng: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's response in so far as it went, but it did not go far enough and sounded increasingly churlish towards the end. He referred to a gap between rhetoric and reality. There is a gap—it is the Conservatives' gap and it lasted 18 long years. We are now filling that gap by making changes to carers' lives and delivering what they are entitled to expect by way of society's recognition of the debt of gratitude that it owes them.
That means a new emphasis by the NHS on training, and the NHS will be taking that on board. Much of what we can do to help carers is practical, sensible and long overdue. One example, which the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise, is the problem of back pain for carers which could be overcome if they were better trained in lifting. At the moment, that is not done. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will ensure, as he takes the strategy forward, that it is done.
26
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked about money. We are only too happy as a Government to take pride in the fact that, next year, spending on social services will increase by £503 million. That is new money, which would not have been provided if that lot on the Conservative Benches had been in power. In addition, we announced today £140 million of new money for practical policies to support carers. That is why the Carers National Association has described this strategy and this Government's approach as a momentous leap for carers. That leap came with Labour; carers would have got nowhere under the Tories.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that nothing said from the Opposition Benches can detract from the excellence and warmth of his statement, which I think will appeal to millions of carers in Britain? Has departmental consultation included the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and our colleagues in Northern Ireland? May I remind him that a section of the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986 deals with carers? The previous Government had 11 years to implement it, but did not. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it helpful in coinciding with and encouraging the main thrust of his excellent statement.
Mr. Boateng: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome. He brings enormous expertise to this area, not least from his period as our spokesperson on disability matters. He will be glad to know that we are in close contact with right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office, all of whom have contributed to the development of the national strategy. I have no doubt that they will bear in mind his points when matters are advanced in the devolved Parliament in Scotland and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing us to look at the statement and the strategy before his announcement. We very much share the view that carers play a vital role which, for too long, has been given inadequate and insufficient attention. Much good practice in the national strategy needs to become the norm. Gathering it together in this one place and highlighting the gaps is a very welcome initiative, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly support.
We must consider not just the fact that carers save the nation £3 billion, but that they bring an extra quality of life to the loved ones whom they look after and support. Does the Minister therefore accept that the strategy's success hinges on the many thousands of people who are carers but remain uncounted and unsupported? How will the strategy address those hidden carers, about whom the agencies do not yet know? As many as eight out of 10 carers have not yet been assessed by social services departments. How will the Government ensure that such assessment proceeds apace, given that, on Treasury figures, social services departments will be £100 million short in their core budgets in the coming year? How can support and assessment go forward on that basis? I would be interested to hear the Minister say how.
Millions of pounds of benefits to which carers are entitled go unclaimed each year. Will the Minister therefore look again at how, through partnership with

27
local government, about which the Government often talk, and through local authority mailing and the Benefits Agency, we can ensure increased take-up of council tax carers discount, which is going unclaimed in very large amounts?
The tax and benefits system penalises carers, and the rules for invalid care allowance do not recognise the extra and on-going costs of caring. The strategy says nothing about reform of the invalid care allowance. When will Ministers outline much needed and long overdue reforms to that benefit, turning it into a genuine carer's benefit?
Will the Minister accept that the Government have raised expectations today? They should raise expectations that there will be new initiatives to support carers—they are long overdue. However, today's statement, at its most generous, gives carers an extra 15p a week. I hope that the Minister will recognise that 15p a week may be being oversold today, and that the Government are underfunding carers' needs.
Mr. Boateng: Call me partisan, but it would have been nice to receive at least a word of recognition and thanks from the hon. Gentleman for the £496,000 of new money that we are giving his local authority to meet the needs of carers—money that it would not have had before.
However, the hon. Gentleman makes some serious points. We do regard the collection of information about carers' needs as a priority. Some 60 per cent. of carers have no contact with other agencies as carers. Many do not recognise themselves as carers. We must find new ways of reaching out to them, to ensure that they get their due. We are introducing a census question to give us a better handle on where carers are and what their needs are. That is a small, practical measure; why was it not taken years and years ago?
We do not intend to leave it at that. We intend the NHS and social services to work alongside the voluntary sector and with the private sector to present these issues, especially on carers and employment. We envisage that a promotional campaign on carers and employment, led by the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), will make an important contribution to the initiative.
We are therefore not only making available new money, which is not, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would suggest, inadequate, but ensuring that a raft of policies is put in place to meet carers' needs; even more important, we are ensuring that, as new policies are developed in this and other areas, carers' needs are at the heart of what we do, in addition to the needs of patients and users.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the first attempt in a targeted and vigorous manner to reverse years of neglect of carers, and, as such, it will be warmly welcomed by those who find themselves in that position? Tonight, many people will be very grateful to him and the Government for what he is trying to do. Will he, however, ensure that he does not follow a wholly unacceptable Tory practice? Will he pay careful attention to those carers who currently
28
receive voluntary support, if it is available, but who may need much more professional help? Will he promise me that he will look at how things are working?
Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course she is right. We must ensure that we have the sort of professional interventions that are necessary to meet carers' needs, and we must recognise the value of partnership between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector. It is a question of ensuring that each contributes that which it is best equipped to give, and we shall ensure that that is done. We have also learnt from the voluntary sector that there exists, in the wider community, a degree of commitment to and wisdom about the practical needs of carers which we need to make better use of in the statutory sector. I promise my hon. Friend that this Government—her Government, our Government—intend to do so.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we on the Opposition Benches strongly welcome all genuine extra support for carers, and that in so far as his statement provides it, we welcome it? However, before history is rewritten, will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to write to me to confirm the many billions of pounds of extra money every year that were provided by the previous Government over 18 years? I remember vividly when I was a junior Minister with responsibilities for social security that by 1987 the sum had risen to an extra £6 billion a year for disabled people and their carers.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm also that, taking the latest local authority settlement, Bedfordshire county council, for example, must find an extra £10 million worth of cuts before it begins because of the money moved away from counties such as Bedfordshire? What will the hon. Gentleman say to carers such as members of the Biggleswade carers society, who are deeply anxious, and rightly so, that there should be extra care with respite support? How often per year, per three years or per five can they expect some practical help from this extra money, which seems to come to less than £10 a year for a carer?
Mr. Boateng: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suffering from a degree of amnesia in this area. It must be said in fairness that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches singularly failed when they had the stewardship of our nation's affairs to give carers the focus that they are now being given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must at least own up to that. I hope that he will point out to the good folk of Biggleswade in his constituency that they will benefit from an additional £836,000 that they would never have received had he continued to sit on the Treasury Bench—and for that they should be thankful.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This is an historic day for Britain's carers. It is a special and important day for 6 million people who provide care worth more than £30 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that when he meets carers he is struck by their extraordinary sense of responsibility and duty and by the fact that for that they often pay a price in terms of extraordinary stress, poverty in old age and sometimes physical or mental breakdown?

29
Given that the great thing about the document produced by the team so ably led by my hon. Friend is its cross-departmental nature, will he nevertheless give heed to the work of Florence Nightingale, who once observed that reports are not self-implementing? Although there are good things in the report that are very specific, much of the rest of the document properly relies on aspirations, good practice and the rest.
Will my hon. Friend therefore consider, not necessarily today, how we can monitor this great comprehensive strategy so that this Parliament and carers can be certain, as Opposition Members have said perfectly properly, that good rhetoric is matched by good practice, as I expect it to be?
Mr. Boateng: The whole House always listens closely to my hon. Friend on matters relating to carers, knowing full well his enormous contribution, in the form of private Members' legislation and subsequently, to their welfare. He makes an important point about the contribution of the entire ministerial team across government to the development of this strategy. I pay tribute to the members of that team and to their officials for the contribution that they have made.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who will be carrying forward the strategy, will want to ensure that the commitment and drive are continued. There is no doubt about the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to carers' needs and concerns. My hon. Friend need have no fear; Florence Nightingale is an example to us all and the wick in her lamp will not be allowed to burn itself—[Laughter.] Well, it is a try. It will not be allowed to burn itself out. If it seems that it might, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be there to keep it alight.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Minister recognise that, although he is right to say that a proper assessment of need throughout the country should be undertaken, in some parts of the country that process has already been taking place? Many carers have been at meetings, filled in forms and identified their needs.
Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the resources that he has announced today are not sapped by yet more forms designed to ascertain what I am sure many social services departments already know but fail to deliver? Will he recognise that one of the greatest pressures on carers is applied if the needs of the people for whom they are caring are not appropriately met? Around the country, social services departments are making those people pay for services that they previously received free of charge. That will be a terrible pressure on the people who look after them.
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady speaks with a great depth of knowledge and is respected in all parts of the House for her contribution to caring and carers. I am grateful for her remarks.
We must make sure that we get right the mechanisms for consultation with carers. That has not always been done as well as it ought to be. Part of our strategy for getting health and social services to work that much better together is to make sure, for instance, that the work being
30
done in relation to health improvement plans and the role of primary care groups and GPs is informed by carers' needs, concerns and opinions.
The hon. Lady is right. We need to improve consultation. We shall make sure that the additional resources being brought to bear on the problem are spent wisely and effectively, and that the spending is properly monitored. That is why I set great store by the new accreditation scheme mentioned in the national strategy. It will involve the voluntary sector in accrediting carers centres to make sure that the public get value for money. That is extremely important. I accept entirely the hon. Lady's point about the importance of consultation and the need to make sure that carers are central to it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I welcome what was said about young carers. Some of us, at our surgeries, are simply appalled by the pressures put on youngsters of 12, 13 or 14 who have to undertake caring duties, often for single-parent families, that make the mind boggle. What is meant in the statement by the words:
"We shall encourage schools to make sure that there is someone to support them. That need not be a teacher—it could be someone else"?
Have there been discussions with the teaching unions about that?
The statement goes on:
"Children who are carers may need help to contact professionals in the health service, the social services, or a local project".
What will be done to help local authorities in this matter?
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the special needs of young carers. We want to make sure that we do not impose a straitjacket on the way in which a school determines that those needs should best be met. Someone in the school office, with an administrative grasp and overview, may be better placed than a teacher to see the entire picture and to make sure that the form master or mistress is aware of the young carer's needs. That concern may initially need to be addressed centrally.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health have particularly in mind a role for the school nurse and for the school, as part of its wider liaison with the NHS, to pick up the special health needs of young carers.
Of all the individuals and groups whom I have met during the preparation of the strategy, none have impressed more than young carers—eight-year-olds and sometimes even younger children who take responsibility day in, day out for the care of a parent. The least that we can do is to ensure that they get support in doing that.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The document is most welcome and plugs an important policy gap. Following on from the previous question, would it not be better if there were a slightly more rigid approach to assistance for young carers via the school? Leaving it to individual schools may not be adequate. For example, there are many schools without school nurses. The circumstances are so varied. Would not central monitoring be preferable, to look at each situation as it develops?
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment is certainly

31
concerned to ensure that the guidance and the guidelines that we put out to schools refer to the needs of young carers. We are currently consulting—not only as part of the Green Paper process, but directly in relation to this strategy—the unions and others about the form that that guidance should take.
The flexibility within the school community is important, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants us to bear that in mind, but we need to ensure that schools get a handle on the problem. There may be, in the fulness of time, room for the inspectorate—and, indeed, for the local authority—to engage in that process; but, first, it is vital that we get out guidance that meets the needs of those young people. They are not being met at the moment—we recognise that—but all concerned are determined to change that.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Across the country there will have been a sigh of relief among carers in respect of the statement, which supports them in their most valuable work. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the work of the voluntary sector—and groups such as the Gedling Take-a-Break Carer group and the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which work alongside groups with statutory entitlements—is supported? The invaluable work that those organisations do to support carers and those in need of care cannot be underestimated. We need to ensure that their valuable contribution is fully recognised in any proposals.
Mr. Boateng: I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the voluntary sector in my hon. Friend's constituency when I was in Gedling a couple of weeks ago. I was struck by the strength of local infrastructure, in relation not only to caring but to a wide range of initiatives that required better and closer partnerships between the statutory and the voluntary sectors.
We need to build on the experience of these organisations—not only the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and the Parkinson's Disease Society, but Crossroads, the Carers National Association and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Those organisations were doing such work long before it became fashionable and when carers' needs were by no means centre stage, as they are now. They have developed expertise and they bring to this area something that, in my view, only the voluntary sector can bring. We have to make sure that they receive the recognition and support that is their due; my colleagues on the Front Bench and I will be doing just that.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I, for one, want to welcome a statement on carers. Recognition of carers and their interests is essential, and for the Government to play to their strengths and to be involved in promotion and publicity in this area is a step forward in itself.
I declare my interests, which go back 20 years, although they do not go back 30 years to the Rev. Mary Webster. For many years, I was the late Baroness Sear's vice-chairman at the Carers National Association, and am currently a vice-president. I am president of the Isle of Wight branch, which I founded, and am closely involved in the Guildford and Waverley branch.
32
There is a crisis of confidence, and I ask the Minister to take one specific step. Please will he write to me setting out the detail of how the home counties, and Surrey in particular, are to cope? They have had the £6 million transitional grant for community care confiscated and their increase for health is the lowest in the country. People are living longer and many live alone. The error that they commit is to be healthy and long lived. That penalises them in the Government' s funding formula, and the anguish at present in Surrey is such as I have never previously known it.
I welcome the statement, but please will the Minister—to clarify that point—respond to me, identifying how Surrey is to cope in the light of the savage social services and health settlements?
Mr. Boateng: The new partnership grant does not represent the confiscation that the right hon. Lady suggests. That, if I may say so, is a travesty of the truth and does her little credit.
Of course I recognise the right hon. Lady's commitment and contribution, over many years, to this particular subject. I will certainly write to her. I have had the opportunity of visiting carers in Surrey and have formed a clear view of the considerable contribution that the voluntary sector makes.
I have good news for the right hon. Lady. The programme of work that we are initiating in this area has the support of those engaged in care in Surrey and elsewhere. There is no crisis of confidence in the Government's determination to put social services on a secure foundation—which they singularly lacked under the right hon. Lady's stewardship—and to take forward this initiative and agenda for carers. This important step must not be undertaken in an atmosphere of party political acrimony, so I am only too happy to write to the right hon. Lady.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I welcome the statement and congratulate my hon. Friend, his team of Ministers and the many carers who contributed to this strategy and to the document. In addition to their caring roles, they are often called upon to participate in policy making, which they welcome and which proves to be of value.
I am particularly pleased that, at long last, the position of children and young people who are carers is being recognised. Perhaps it is right to declare an interest: immediately before coming to the House, I was employed by the Carers National Association. I am pleased that its campaigning work, along with other organisations, has at last brought about this important step.
When the census forms are completed, will young people undertaking caring roles in the family be identified? If adult carers have been the hidden army, young people have been even more disguised and lost in the system.
The Government are encouraging awareness raising by other Departments. Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that GPs and primary health care workers participate in the training programme? In many cases, a carer's first contact is the family doctor or the district nurse.
Mr. Boateng: My first memories of my hon. Friend were of someone who was leading the voluntary sector's

33
work with carers, especially young carers. She is right about the need to get better at identifying young carers. We hope and believe that the census question will assist in that, but it is important also to recognise the role that GPs, health visitors and other health professionals can play in helping us to identify young carers. Young carers are more willing to approach those people and share their concerns with them, because they are not seen as judgmental or likely to raise the possibility of social service intervention, which young carers fear.
We must use health service and other professionals, and we must give young people a sense that they can identify themselves as carers without anyone being judgmental of them and their parents. Young carers have told some horrific stories. This morning at No. 10, a young carer aged nine told of being stood up in front of a class and identified as a carer, which was the last thing on earth she wanted to happen.
We must ensure that when we identify young carers we respond to them sensitively. We must encourage them to come forward to get the help that they so richly deserve.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Minister will know as well as anyone that one of the most useful things for carers is to be able to count on relatively simple but regular substitution or assistance, so that they can have some respite to go to the hairdresser's or whatever. The Minister may also be aware that there is an increasing determination among the Churches of this land to make themselves a great deal more effective in intervening to assist their communities—this strategy being based around the millennium.
Will the Minister undertake to consult the Churches at this early stage in their plans, to establish the extent to which regular, reliable, voluntary assistance can be built into those plans? By doing so, he will make available possibly as many as 5 million volunteers.
Mr. Boateng: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, last Friday I had the privilege of presenting our strategy to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, who received a copy of our document today. We have embarked on the process. We see the Church and, indeed, other faith bodies as partners in the task. They are already doing great work, and together we can do even better.

Point of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you know—you have been in the Chair on a number of occasions when I have raised the matter here—one of the biggest issues in my constituency is the future of the building housing the staff college, which is probably one of the most significant military sites in the world.
Over the past 20 months, I have repeatedly asked Ministers, in both written and oral questions, about their plans for the building's future. Initially, I received a series of answers saying, "We will let the hon. Gentleman know shortly": it was always "shortly, shortly, shortly". Then, about six months ago, the nature of both oral and written answers changed. The Secretary of State and other Ministers said, "No plans have yet been put to Ministers."
It was therefore with considerable shock that, last Friday, my constituents and I read the main story on the front page of our local newspaper. According to that story, there was a proposal to consider converting the staff college into luxury flats or a corporate headquarters. Not only is the building on a secure site, and enormously significant because the royal military academy, Sandhurst, is next door to it—the secure area covers the whole site—but it contains war memorials. A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman is quoted extensively.
I thought that you, Madam Speaker, might have had an indication that a Minister might wish to apologise to the House for the fact that the news emerged from an MOD spokeswoman who was quoted in the press, and for the fact that no information was given to the House of Commons, the other place or the constituency Member involved, namely me. Can you tell me, Madam Speaker, whether you have had any such indication, or how I can best pursue the matter on behalf of my constituents, who are very angry?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some idea of his point of order, and for allowing me to see the press report to which he has referred. As he and the House know, I make no comment on press statements or press reports, nor am I aware that a Minister is ready to make a statement on the matter in the House. I am, however, aware of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked. My guidance is this: he should continue to ask questions in the House, or raise the issue on the Adjournment. He must pursue the issue by parliamentary means.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL
    Mr. Matthew Taylor, supported by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Norman Baker, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Lepper and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to extend the right of citizens to information concerning certain activities which may affect the environment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 41].
Orders of the Day

  Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we start the debate, I should draw your attention to a rather serious matter. The explanatory notes relating to the Bill, which have been distributed throughout the House, contain the following important statement:
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech on 17 March that the CA"—
  the Contributions Agency—
  "and its operational functions would transfer from the DSS to the Inland Revenue in April 1999".
  The notes continue on the basis that the decision has already been made.
  Once again, the Government are taking Parliament for granted. They assume that they can announce decisions when Parliament has made no such decisions. Would not a slightly greater degree of democratic modesty be becoming on the part of the Government, even if they do have a vast majority at present?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  4.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) says, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his last Budget statement to the House that the Contributions Agency would transfer from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue in April 1999. He did so because it is normal to announce such things in Budget statements to the House. Most impartial observers will think that the Chancellor did entirely the right thing.
  Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: Not at the moment.
  The transfer that the Chancellor announced is provided for by the Bill. Perhaps I will give way now because I want to refer to something completely different, as they say.
  Mr. Davies: It seemed the right moment to intervene again to try to set the record straight. What the Chancellor actually said in his Budget statement, perhaps ill-advisedly, was that he had already agreed with the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, to make that transfer. Presumably, the Chancellor did not realise at the time that primary legislation would be required, which the Government are now introducing. Now that the
  36
  Government have discovered that such legislation is required, it is not for them to assume what Parliament's decision on the Bill will be.
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the accompanying press releases that are traditionally issued with Budget statements, he will find that it was always anticipated that primary legislation would be required, so that is not a good point. Perhaps he has some other points to raise in the debate. I hope that they are better than that one.
  The House will be aware that, at the moment, national insurance contributions are administered by the Contributions Agency, which is part of the Department of Social Security. Income tax is administered by the Inland Revenue. The reason that NICs are collected separately from income tax goes back to the origins of the modern welfare state. Those historical divisions are no longer sensible.
  In 1948, workers did not begin to pay tax until they were close to average earnings. On the other hand, national insurance was designed as a universal, flat-rate scheme, so nearly all workers paid their national insurance stamp. Many had no contact with the Inland Revenue.
  Two developments have changed that. First, in 1961 and again in 1975, contributions by employees and employers became earnings-related. Because of that, a majority of NICs began to be collected under the pay-as-you-earn system. Profit-related class 4 NICs for the self-employed were introduced and collected alongside schedule D income tax. As a result, the Inland Revenue now collects 94 per cent. of NICs and the Contributions Agency collects only about 6 per cent. of NICs, principally the flat-rate class 2 charge on the self-employed.
  Secondly, more and more of those paying NICs are also paying income tax. Eighty per cent. of employees who pay NICs also pay income tax.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is really admitting what Governments of all persuasions should have been prepared to admit many years ago, that the term "national insurance" is a complete con. It was never a serious insurance scheme. It has never provided any serious insurance against misfortune. It was merely a form of taxation, whatever its original intentions were. Would it not be more sensible to abolish the term altogether?
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the national insurance system, which was established in 1948, was conceived by its authors as a type of insurance. Of course, it is not insurance as most people understand it today, in that it is funded as a pay-as-one-goes system. The contributions that are paid today depend on the taxpayers of today, not on contributions that were paid perhaps 10 or 20 years ago, but the idea was that, if people paid into the national insurance fund, they would receive certain benefits.
  Of course, most of the benefits that people receive are pensions; the vast majority of the contributions go on them. The national health service, which I suspect many people think is partly funded by national insurance contributions, is financed largely by current taxation. However, that is not the point that I am arguing today.

  37
  All I am saying is that, although one can understand why historically, over the years, national insurance contributions and tax were treated differently, I do not believe that the case for such treatment endures.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that successive Governments have perhaps not rationalised the system. I do not disagree with him, but whether previous Governments were, at the time, right not to rationalise does not matter. The point is that, today, the current Government are dealing with what we consider to be an anomaly. Moreover, the developments that have led to closer co-operation between the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue have made change necessary.
  Closer co-operation has already brought some benefits to business. For example, a joint annual information pack has been provided for employers and a single leaflet and registration pack has been provided for the newly self-employed. However, such benefits can take us only so far. Employers still have to deal with separate Departments on their tax and national insurance contribution queries. The Government therefore believe not only that we can go further, but that we should go further.
  In our Green Paper on welfare reform, we stressed the importance of a modern system of delivering government—a system that is not only flexible and efficient but easy for people to use. Too often, our current procedures are designed for the convenience of government and not for the convenience of the public.
  Employers do not understand the logic of keeping separate the administration and structure of national insurance contributions and tax. Just over 1 million employers are liable to pay national insurance contributions for their employees, and have to deduct both tax and national insurance contributions from employees' pay. However, they have to cope with two separate sets of rules. Moreover, if they have questions, they have to deal with two separate Departments. Those starting out on their own—perhaps starting up their own business or in other self-employment—also have to deal with separate Departments on tax and on national insurance. I therefore believe that the case for change is overwhelming.
  I should tell the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that Ministers are not the only people who believe that change is inevitable and right. Last week, in the Opposition Supply day debate on pensions, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) had some fun with the fact that, for some reason, my name had not been included in the list of those who supported the Government amendment to the Opposition motion. I can tell the House that whoever was responsible for the omission was, apparently, very contrite about it—not that it bothered me. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman raised the point, I thought that I should take the trouble—which, I must confess, I do not always take—to read the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment to today's motion. I noticed that one name was missing from their list.
  The omission struck me as curious, given the nature of the proposals to transfer the Contributions Agency. Moreover, when I noticed the missing name, I was reminded of the deregulation task force, which was established by the previous Government. I therefore looked at the task force's report for 1994–95—here it is,
  38
  with a nice red strip across it, and with an illustration of scissors cutting red tape—and found something very interesting. On taxation and national insurance, the report states:
  "Ministers should commit themselves now to a merger of the field forces of the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency. Apart from saving public money, this would eliminate the burden of double accountability and interference for employers, and reduce the time needed to cope with workplace taxation."
  It continues:
  "This issue has been endlessly debated in Whitehall. A decision should be made now."
  That is all good, sensible stuff.
  As I thumbed through that piece of bedtime reading, I was interested to see that, on page 3, it was signed by someone called "Maude". I began to ask myself whether that was not the same Maude who is now the shadow Chancellor. It was the very same one—the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—and his name is not listed in support of today's Opposition amendment. I suspect that it has been omitted because the shadow Chancellor—having so cogently made the case for transfer only a couple of years ago—might be in some difficulty if he included his name in favour of an Opposition amendment that opposes the transfer of the Contributions Agency.
  It is curious that Conservative Members oppose the Bill whereas it was not opposed in the other place—where, as we know, the Conservatives have a 3:1 majority over Labour. What is more, its thrust to transfer the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue was warmly endorsed by the shadow Chancellor when he was formulating the deregulation task force. Why are those Members opposing it today? It is clearly because of the difference of opinion between the shadow social security spokesman and the shadow Chancellor. I read that the Leader of the Opposition is off to America to look for some good ideas. That is not surprising. Before he goes, perhaps he might like to end the confusion among his colleagues, who clearly do not know whether they are coming or going.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: There is no confusion. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor will demonstrate that when he votes tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I am sure that he wants to join us as soon as possible, but he has been somewhat delayed.
  In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), now shadow Leader of the House, comprehensively dismissed the argument once he had looked at it, saying that it was not feasible or worth while. The Secretary of State should check Hansard a little more rigorously.
  Mr. Darling: I am sorry if yet another Conservative has sought to rubbish the good work done by the right hon. Member for Horsham. What was good enough for him in 1995 must be good enough for him today. I dare say that even now frantic telephone calls will be going out to get the man into the Lobby tonight, perhaps to spare his blushes. If he is watching the debate on the monitors, he will see that there is plenty of room on the Conservative Benches. If this is a great issue of principle for the Conservatives and they think that what we are

  39
  doing is wrong, evil and an example of the heavy-handed government that they are always criticising, more of them should have turned up. I understand that they are having trouble getting speakers.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: There are not many Labour Members here.
  Mr. Darling: As ever, my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with what the Government are doing. Whatever the Government are doing, they are right behind us.
  The Government's proposals are supported by business across the board. The Institute of Directors, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the British Chambers of Commerce and the National Association of Pension Funds—
  Miss Anne McIntosh rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way in a moment. All those organisations believe that the Bill will reduce burdens on business and individuals by enabling them to sort out their taxes and contributions through a single organisation. Will the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) tell us what is wrong with easing the burdens on business and simplifying the way in which the Government go about their business?
  Miss McIntosh: I do not wish to detract from the speech that I hope to make later. Will the Secretary of State help me? We seem to be reading different messages from the same businesses. The same United States companies that he believes welcome the Bill have told me that if the programme is on PAYE the Government must make a contribution to the cost from the money that they will be saving. Giving evidence to the Social Security Committee for its first report of this Session, the Institute of Directors clearly said that the measure would be an unacceptable burden on business. Some of us referred to that last week. Are the Government considering an alternative to putting such a burden on business through PAYE?
  Mr. Darling: I may be wrong—if I am, I shall deal with the issue later—but I think that the Institute of Directors was talking about a different measure. The IOD thinks that bringing together the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue is good because it lifts burdens. It is easier for business to deal with one body rather than two. The Bill will also enable the two Departments to combine their efforts to improve their service to customers, which is important.
  Although full operational integration in both Departments will take some time, plans are already in place to improve service. Employers will begin to see a better service from April. They rightly complain about getting two visits to check their payroll records from inspectors who ask much the same questions—one from the Contributions Agency and one from the Revenue. From April, we shall provide a single audit examination of PAYE and national insurance contribution records. We are also integrating customer assistance teams from both Departments from April to support business while
  40
  providing unified training and education on tax and national insurance contributions. We shall produce single leaflets on both matters from April.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with the work of my former colleagues at the university of Bath on the burden of income tax and national insurance on firms. Firms said that most of all they wanted a single tax—not just unified administration, which we welcome, but one tax in place of two sets of rules. The Bill is a welcome step towards that. How much further down that track does the Secretary of State expect to go?
  Mr. Darling: All that the Bill does is to integrate the administration of national insurance. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government are looking at the contributions system, and any reform would have to await the conclusion of that study. In the meantime, this is simply an administrative measure—I make no bones about it. This highly technical Bill will improve the administration of government and lift burdens on business. Those are the driving forces behind it. The Government are always studying the contributions system, but the Bill is not a part of that process.
  We are improving the service provided to business and, in addition, we will extend access to the information available in Inland Revenue tax inquiry centres and elsewhere so that national insurance information will be available in more than 300 extra local centres this year. We are looking also at improving the specialist helplines so that we can deal with both tax and national insurance inquiries in one call.
  Finally, we are unifying the appeals process so that if someone has a dispute about his tax or national insurance—which is often the same issue, and often concerns whether someone is employed or self-employed—he will be dealt with under one appeal. The reforms have been much sought by business, and they are in line with the recommendations of the tax law review committee, whose work we supported in opposition and continue to support now that we are in government.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Anyone looking at the reply that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) could draw a strong inference that the Bill was only a first step, and that the national insurance contributory principle was under scrutiny by the Government in the longer term. What is the Government's long-term intention for the principle? Is the Bill part of longer-term reform, or is it tying up what the Secretary of State has reasonably described as a series of anomalies which may need attention?
  Mr. Darling: I will turn to that in a moment. The transfer is entirely independent of any other consideration. It is necessary and desirable on its own merits, and that is why we are pressing ahead with it. As far as I know, only the Conservative Opposition are opposed to it. They are entitled to take that position—they do not mind being on their own on the outer fringes of acceptable opinion. They have every right to be there, and I am quite happy to leave them there.

  41
  On policy transfer, the position has changed in the past week or so. Bringing the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue together still leaves different Departments responsible for policy. We have decided to transfer policy responsibility for national insurance contributions from the Department of Social Security to Treasury Ministers and the Inland Revenue.
  At the time of the last Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that we intended the Contributions Agency to transfer this April, at the start of the new financial year. However, we did not then propose a date for the transfer of national insurance contributions policy functions.
  I have decided that the simultaneous transfer of operational and policy functions is necessary. It is undesirable to consider whether a matter is operational or policy before determining which Minister is responsible for it. Simultaneous transfer will mean clearer accountability to the House. The explanatory notes to the Bill say that the transfer of policy responsibility will take place from an appointed day. I can now tell the House that that appointed day will be 1 April.
  The Chancellor and I will continue to have access to each other's officials for developing and discussing policies. However, by transferring those officials who develop and manage policy on national insurance to the Inland Revenue, business and other representative bodies will be given one focus for the discussion of improved legislation, procedures and guidance.
  Business is rightly concerned about the technical differences in tax and national insurance contributions practice and law that add complexity and increase costs. We want to consider the scope for further alignment in discussions with representative bodies. As a first step, we have already announced a review of the inquiry powers that will be available to Inland Revenue staff. We are considering how best to provide a wider unified consultation process to ensure a productive environment for discussing the improvements.
  Mr. Frank Field: Would it not be possible to interpret the decision taken in the past week as a fundamental change and a proposal to abolish my right hon. Friend's Department? We are talking about half his budget, and the policy decisions will now be determined in the Treasury.
  Mr. Darling: It occurred to me over the weekend that someone would ask such a question, but I had not quite anticipated that it would be my right hon. Friend. With respect, what he says is simply not true. We are talking about ensuring that those who are responsible for the policy and operations of the Contributions Agency should be housed under one roof, as otherwise all sorts of difficulties arise when trying to distinguish between policy and operations.
  The Department of Social Security is not being abolished, or anything like it, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate when he reflects on these matters. In any event, it is important that all Departments should work together, and especially the Treasury and the Department of Social Security. Perhaps because of what I used to do, I have absolutely no difficulty with that. Frankly, the departmentalitis that so afflicts Whitehall, and that anyone coming into government is struck by very early on, is something that the Government should strive to break down.
  42
  We are talking about ensuring that operational and policy responsibility are under one roof, but of course the Chancellor needs access to Department of Social Security officials, just as I need access to Inland Revenue and Treasury officials. That close working relationship seems to me to be entirely desirable. The public do not ask themselves which Department is operating a policy; they ask themselves what the Government are doing to make life better for them. The Bill is a step change in improving public service, which is why I believe it should be supported.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State started by saying that the Bill was essentially straightforward and small, mainly involving administration, and did not portend anything, but he now seems to have revealed, partly under probing from others and partly from his own inclination, that it is more than that: it is a paving Bill leading to major changes. If he would admit that, we could have the proper debate, about which he has talked endlessly, about means testing and the contributory principle.
  Mr. Darling: I repeat that I am more than happy to discuss the contributory principle, means testing and the other ways in which we provide benefits, but the hon. Gentleman must be a subscriber to the conspiracy theory of policy to read into the Bill anything more than sensible administration and the delivery of good government. I know that conspiracy theories are attractive to the extremes of politics, on both left and right, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is falling into that trap.
  The Bill is a sensible measure to deliver better administration and a better service to the public. That is why the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the House of Lords did not oppose it and why the vast majority of people who have studied the measure support it. As he will well know, from time to time all Governments move policy consideration from Department to Department. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) used to do it when he was Prime Minister.
  The clear principle is that policy and operational matters are often so interlinked that it does not make sense to divide them. Of course policy matters could have remained in my Department for another year, but that would not, I believe, have made for the best administration of the Department. I have no difficulty with the fact that they will be passed to the Inland Revenue. I can still get access to the officials, just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor can get access to my officials. That is how good government ought to work. Perpetuating needless divisions seems to me to be entirely pointless.
  We ought to be discussing measures that deliver a better service to the public. The public do not care which Department deals with the matter; they are bothered about lifting the burdens on business, making it easier to set up a business and making the administration of public life better. That is what the Bill is intended to do.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Without wanting to appear appallingly sycophantic, may I say that I fully support the Bill? However, I have a question about clause 24. I think that I am right to say that, under the Bill, responsibility for the contributions policy covering Northern Ireland will be transferred at the

  43
  same time as equivalent responsibilities for other parts of the country. Clause 24, inter alia, allows the relevant Departments of the Northern Ireland Office to be renamed and restructured. It also allows Northern Ireland civil servants to be transferred to the home civil service. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office's Department of Health and Social Services, and their trade union representatives, are being fully consulted about measures that may cause a sea change in their employment?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, the Government consult employees, and there may be changes. My hon. Friend will know that the question of transfer depended to some extent on the progress of other matters. There has been some slippage there, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said. However, it is important in matters such as this that our staff are included in the process. I know that my hon. Friend maintains a close interest in what happens in Northern Ireland and, once the situation is clarified, I shall be happy to write to him and set out what we intend to do.
  Miss McIntosh: In reply to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Secretary of State was rather dismissive about the possibility of his Department disappearing. I am a relatively new Member of the House of Commons, so will he explain what his Department's role will be after the Contributions Agency and responsibility for the working families tax credit have transferred to the Inland Revenue? What will his Department and his Ministers be responsible for then?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady may be new to these matters, but she is not that new. She has had time to notice that the Department of Social Security accounts for one third of all Government spending—a total of just under £100 billion, to be precise. I can assure her that we will still have the odd thing to do, and that any talk of the end of the Department is premature.
  There was a time when the Conservative party claimed to speak for business. Clearly, that is no longer so. What we are talking about is lifting the burdens on business. The hon. Lady should have a word with the right hon. Member for Horsham, the shadow Chancellor, who knew the importance of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman worked in the City when he took time out from Parliament between the 1992 and 1997 general elections. He was put in charge of the Deregulation Committee: he accepted that the case for change was overwhelming and urged the then Government to stop dithering and to get on with it. Well might he have done so: it has taken a new Government to do something about it.
  I repeat—although it may be to the point of tedium—that the public do not care which Department delivers a service, provided that it is delivered efficiently and effectively. That is what we are doing.
  Conservative Members have developed a new-found interest in the means test, as befits members of a party that in government doubled the incidence of means testing from 16 per cent. of cases to 34 per cent. The Bill makes no changes to the structure and rates of national insurance contributions. It keeps the scheme distinct from general taxation. The national insurance fund continues to exist separately from the Consolidated Fund.
  44
  Moreover, the Bill does not affect the yield from tax or national insurance contributions, nor does it affect benefit expenditure. That is a matter for my Department, and it occupies much of our time. It does not affect the qualifying conditions for any contributory benefit, and it makes no change in pensions policy. So the Bill has no implications whatsoever for the contributory principle. I should be delighted to debate that whenever the Opposition—or anyone else—would like, but the Bill does not affect the contributory principle at all.
  As I have said, the Inland Revenue already collects 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions. The Bill is about modernising government to provide a better service to business and individuals. That is what makes the Conservative party's opposition to it so extraordinary.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that the Secretary of State can help me on a technical point, which I raise in the presence of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who might be interested in the answer. The Secretary of State says that he will have no difficulty with gaining access to Contributions Agency officials, but the members of the Select Committee have been told that we cannot interview Treasury officials or bring them before our Committee, because the Treasury takes the view that it does not want its officials to be summoned to appear before all those other Select Committees. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment on behalf of the Government that, once the agency has passed from one Department to another, the Social Security Committee will be able to question Contributions Agency officials, despite the fact that they are employed by the Treasury?
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give that commitment. Generally speaking, Select Committees shadow their Department. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I received warm invitations to address almost every Select Committee, but I was forced to decline those invitations because it was not possible to appear before every single one. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I have discussed the matter with the Social Security Committee, because, increasingly, work that historically was confined to the DSS now spans other Departments. I have made the point before that welfare is not only about the DSS, but about changing the whole culture of government. If the Social Security Committee is having special difficulties, there are channels available to be explored. I know that other Select Committees have, from time to time, been tempted to wander outside what might be considered their traditional territory. The matter is not one that I can deal with today, but I am aware of the concerns.
  As the subject appears to have been raised in the reasoned amendment—it is not altogether clear—I shall say a word or two about the national insurance recording system computer. Hon. Members on both sides have, rightly, expressed concern about the effect of the difficulties. When we last discussed the subject, last week or the week before, I said that we would put into the public domain further information about the national insurance computer; that continues to be my intention. I hope to be able to do that either this week or at the beginning of next week, so that the House can be brought fully up to date on the problems that we are encountering.

  45
  It will take considerable time for the problems to be cleared up. Teams of people are working in Newcastle with Andersen Consulting, which supplied the computer equipment, and with Contributions Agency staff. They are working night and day and my hon. Friend the Minister of State receives daily reports. At this stage, I can say only that it will take time to clear up the problems, but that we are determined to get the system running properly as soon as possible. As I said, I hope to be in a position to give an up-to-date report, if not later this week, then at the beginning of next week, but if any hon. Member has a individual question, my colleagues and I shall be happy to help.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am sure the House appreciates what the Secretary of State says, but will he consider creating the opportunity for questions to be asked across the Floor of the House by presenting a statement, either when the report is produced or immediately thereafter?
  Mr. Darling: It is in the nature of the computer—indeed, of any computer, large or small—that the situation appears to change from week to week, sometimes from day to day. I am not sure whether Madam Speaker would allow me to come to the House to make a daily report on what happened in Newcastle the previous night, so I cannot undertake to make a statement. However, I shall ensure that—as is often true of answers to parliamentary questions—the answer, when it comes, is very long and sets out the position as clearly as possible. If the occasion demands it, it is always open to Opposition to ensure through the usual channels that I make a statement or find some other way to allow questions to be put to me on the matter. I would have no difficulty with doing that.
  The contract was entered into in 1995, but there have been difficulties with the system under both the previous Government and the current Government. It must be the objective of all of us to get the matter cleared up as quickly as possible, so I am more than happy to answer questions about it.
  The case for transfer is overwhelming. It is good news for employers and for individuals. It will bring about better government by delivering a single Department to deal with tax and national insurance questions. It will enable the best efforts of both the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue to be combined to provide better customer service. The Bill paves the way for better government, for the better delivery of tax and national insurance systems and for better service to employers. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because the effect of the Bill will be to facilitate the ending of the contributory principle, leading to the wider application of the means test, which will have a detrimental effect on the public and particularly pensioners; and because the major practical difficulties in transferring functions relating to social security contributions to the Treasury have not been overcome."
  Today's debate will be seen by many as purely technical—in fact, the Secretary of State opened the debate on that basis. However, Opposition Members
  46
  believe that the legislation is more than simply technical and that some elements of principle must be addressed. Although I accept that the Bill, in all its detail, is very functional, exploring that detail will require a strong and concerted effort in Committee. It is, however, a hugely important Bill, not purely a technical one, and it is a significant part of the Government's legislative programme because it deals with those matters of principle of which the House is aware.
  I noted that the Secretary of State began by exploring the narrow, technical side of the Bill and then drifted into the what-ifs. In essence, he was asking, "Once this is done, where do we go from here?" The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also teased out that question with the Secretary of State, and I shall deal with some of the bigger issues later in the debate. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill is detailed, I think that we must address some serious questions of principle. At the end of the day, it boils down to whether one believes the Government's assurances—and we shall come to that point in due course.
  I shall begin with some of the misgivings that were raised in the other place by noble Lords on all sides. Let us deal with the Government's assertions about savings to business. Much has been made of the cost to business generated by dealing with national insurance contributions. The Government contend—with the support of many business leaders—that the Bill will save businesses money. The 1994 White Paper, "Competitiveness: helping business to win", contained proposals to examine
  "how the work of the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and Contributions Agency can best be co-ordinated to minimise costs on business arising from tax collection and compliance."
  Following consultation on that basis, an amalgamation was ruled out—although closer co-operation was encouraged to reduce the general burdens. In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said:
  "It was concluded that the overlap between the Revenue and the agency did not warrant an amalgamation of the two businesses. In addition, any efficiency gains would be outweighed by transitional costs and disruption to both departments."—[Official Report, 14 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 516.]
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I will make this point and then give way. I accept—as would any hon. Member—that there will be some administrative savings to business.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be patient. We have plenty of time—judging by the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, it is not as though we are under a great time pressure. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished making this point.
  We accept that there should be some administrative savings. If those savings are to be realised, the real purpose of the transfer must be to cut the overall cost of the Inland Revenue or the Contributions Agency or both. If there is no cost reduction, businesses will continue to carry an increasing burden, which will be reflected in the cost of employing those who work for them.
  Mr. Davies: On reflection, will the hon. Gentleman accept that he has completely missed the point?

  47
  The savings to business are not savings to the Government in terms of amalgamation. The net present value of savings to the Government is positive—the analysis was not conducted properly. My main point is that there is no quantification of the savings to business, which are enormous and on-going and affect the competitive position of businesses across Britain.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am coming to that. My point is that, in reality, we must question to what degree those savings will flow to business. What businesses think they will get is quite important, as is what they actually get.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to finish developing my argument and then he can decide whether I have made my point—I dare say he will decide that I have not and I shall take another intervention from him at a later stage.
  It goes without saying that, although the Government headline the transfer as a saving to business, that is debatable, given the nature of the proposal and the increasing costs to business. Businesses will be likely to secure serious and general real-term savings—this point is important to businesses, so the hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind—only by cutting overall administrative costs. That is, ultimately, about the number of personnel that businesses employ and the way in which they do business.
  The only way in which the Government could achieve their aim—this is the subject of the extended debate on which the Liberal Democrats are very keen—would be ultimately to merge the two systems. That is the holy grail that would deliver huge savings that could be transferred to business through overall tax reductions. The question is how far the Government intend to go—and, whether or not they want to admit it, that is the subject of the debate.
  It is worth making the practical point that the Bill will transfer the Contributions Agency at a time when the Inland Revenue faces serious challenges. The Inland Revenue has already experienced administrative problems with the introduction of self-assessment. The Secretary of State was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his previous life, although the less said about reincarnation, the better. He will recall that in a written answer on 28 January, the Paymaster General said, in reference to the problems of self-assessment, that of 3.4 million tax statements issued by the Inland Revenue, 870,000 contained superfluous information that it was accepted was likely to lead to failed tax returns by many people who had been misled.
  The Inland Revenue has had to undertake to write to all those taxpayers to apologise for misleading them. That is all linked to the complications of self-assessment. I understand that the cost of those letters alone could be £250,000. My practical point, therefore, is that the Government are proposing hastily to transfer the agency when the Inland Revenue faces major structural upheavals in trying to cope with self-assessment.
  Furthermore, costs will ultimately fall on the shoulders of business through the working families tax credit. There is no question but that the change to that structure and the
  48
  transfer of that responsibility will place yet more heavy bureaucratic pressures on the Inland Revenue. In Social Security questions today, the Secretary of State referred to the report of the Select Committee on Social Security on family credit. He referred, rightly, to the desire to ensure that the mistakes that allowed fraud to be committed in the claiming of family credit would not be repeated with the working families tax credit.
  There is a need to address those major changes, which are all happening at the same time as the transfer of the working families tax credit, the problems with self-assessment faced by the Inland Revenue and the Bill. They are likely to lead to greater cost pressures, which will fall on business.
  Mr. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the ways in which error can creep into the system—I put it no more strongly than that—is if two organisations ask an employer to provide information? The information given to the second organisation may differ slightly from that given to the first because the employer will forget something or say, "I told the other fellow all about that." Mistakes arise when local authorities collect information on housing benefit and so does the Benefits Agency. Is it not better and more efficient for people to deal with one agency that can check that all its information and the national insurance contributions are correct?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State makes a particular point about simplifying the flow of information for business. If it is possible to achieve that aim—that is the question—improved efficiency might result.
  My question relates to the way in which the information is gathered and for what purpose. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that matters are not as simple as they appear to be because two agencies will be gathering and holding information for very different purposes. It is too simplistic to say that it would be good if agencies collected information at the same time because, to a greater or lesser extent, they are collecting different information. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  Much of the debate about savings to business is questionable. I used to run a business before I entered the House. Any business would agree to a proposal that saved it a task and therefore represented a saving, but the question is, what is the other side of that equation which may lead to other costs flowing through to businesses? They will not consider those costs because they are not their responsibility. That is what the debate is really about, not just the superficial costs.
  In the other place, Baroness Hollis admitted that, over a couple of years, costs are likely to rise by £16 million or £17 million. I do not have the exact figures; I shall have to take Baroness Hollis at her word. Regardless of whether she said that, I would have estimated that there would be a problem because bureaucratic necessities will increase costs. The problem is, who bears that cost? It is not a free-as-air cost; ultimately it must be borne by the taxpayer. That is my point. The Government need to be talking about real savings.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: I have just noticed, while reading about the hon. Gentleman's background, that he has no experience of setting up small businesses. He worked for very large companies. I moved from working for a

  49
  multinational to setting up my own successful businesses, so I know the time that separate national insurance and pay-as-you-earn systems take. Such separate systems cost businesses because accountants have to be employed to work it out. If the Government are pursuing an amalgamated, aligned and simple system, it will result in a great saving to new small businesses, and be the engine of future employment.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I note the hon. Gentleman's advertisement for his own background, although he should have checked a little more about mine. If he had, he would have seen that the company that I was talking about is a small-to-medium-sized business, not a large business. Its turnover was not what the hon. Gentleman thinks. Most people make that mistake about Jane's. I did quite a lot in that company, but I do not want to get down to the details. That is not the debate. He makes a petty point, which I take, but I do not agree with it.
  The Government face a problem of trying to figure out the savings and present them to business. It is very easy to present a superficial case, saying to business, "We will take this away from you, therefore it is a cost saving." The question is whether that is really so. On one hand, the Government are talking up the savings, but on the other, they are admitting that, even in the immediate future, there will be no savings, and, more particularly, given the disruption in the two departments, there are likely to be some increases in cost.
  Businesses love to hear wonderful news about savings, but it comes ill from a Government who have significantly raised business costs. That is why I am sceptical, and why one or two businesses are beginning to question the proposals. The Government imposed the windfall tax, which cost business £5.2 billion. Independent assessors estimated that the July 1997 Budget cost business indirectly and directly £14.2 billion. The March 1998 Budget cost business £4.9 billion. It is independently estimated that the minimum wage will cost £8.1 billion. The working time directive is likely to cost almost £7 billion. The European works council will cost £0.085 billion, and this parental leave stuff will cost business £0.11 billion. Overall—admittedly it was not all imposed by the Department of Social Security—business must take into consideration a cost of £39.3 billion.
  Even the CBI, which supports the measure because of the hypothetical cost saving, has some reservations. It wonders whether savings really will filter down to businesses, or instead be lost in a swamp of extra costs.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The CBI does indeed support the measure. Has the hon. Gentleman discussed his argument with the shadow Chancellor? Has he read the deregulation task force report, for which the shadow Chancellor was responsible? It says:
  "It is a massive and unnecessary burden for employers to have to cope with two separate bureaucracies for matters concerning payroll taxes"?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I have endless discussions with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, who is both a friend and a colleague. He will demonstrate clearly that what the Government propose will not work. I know that it is always great fun in this place to try to point out supposed divisions between people; many in the House
  50
  try to do so. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire dealt with that in 1995. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has accepted—as we all do—that there are serious obstacles in the way of the Government's intention. We probed that issue in the House of Lords, but did not get satisfactory answers.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No; I want to make progress.
  The Secretary of State discussed the problems of the national insurance computer, and I am grateful for his comments. It is worth mentioning the problems that have affected that computer, but what effect do they have on the Bill? Although the right hon. Gentleman did mention the subject, he did not discuss to what extent problems with the computer may cause problems for the Government in the transfer.
  In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Higgins raised the matter with the Government several times, urging them to accept that, unless the problem was resolved before the move across, there could be serious problems. The matter was again discussed on Report when, although not admitting that the computer problems would have any effect, the Government conceded that, in the interim, they would have to do something that they had not anticipated. They have now agreed to make interim payments, which I believe is a result of my noble Friend's persistent pressure. That is to be welcomed, but it shows that the situation with the computer is bound to have some effect on the transfer or on the attitude of members of the public to the transfer, who will want to know what is happening.
  It is surely not good enough for the Government simply to say that, because they are making a block transfer, it does not matter whether the problems of NIRS2 are in the hands of the Department for Social Security or of the Inland Revenue. That shows some complacency—the Secretary of State did not really answer that accusation. It also shows a failure to recognise that very many pensioners are now aware what is going on and will be deeply worried lest the issue is not resolved.
  I therefore ask the Government to think again about timing, even if they are set on other aspects of the transfer. I urge them—if, as expected, the vote goes their way tonight—to consider accepting the amendment tabled by Lord Higgins in the other place, which would delay the transfer until the matter is resolved. I urge the Government at least to consider that and to admit that there will be problems.
  The next point that I want to make concerns confidentiality. As we know, the Inland Revenue keeps relatively short-term records on the tax paid by individuals, whereas—as the Secretary of State will know from his previous position of Chief Secretary—the records of the Contributions Agency are cumulative and, of necessity, much more detailed. It is fairly common knowledge that the Contributions Agency is responsible for maintaining the national insurance accounts for more than 65 million customers, 1.4 million employers, more than 3 million self-employed people and a personal pension population in excess of 5.7 million.

  51
  I always have an instinctive political concern when someone suggests that administrative amalgamations and transfers make common sense simply because they save money, without examining to what extent the privacy of the individual may be trespassed on. I am fully aware now, as is everyone in the House, that Governments must achieve a balance between their responsibility to the taxpayer and their responsibility to the rights and liberties of those whom they govern. That awareness lies at the heart of this concern.
  Reading the House of Lords Hansard, I felt, notwithstanding the soothing words of Baroness Hollis, that that issue was not really dealt with properly. For example, clause 6 of the Bill allows information to be held by the Board of Inland Revenue to be supplied to
  "any … person providing … services to the Board".
  Such an open-ended statement makes us question whether a subsection could be used to justify accessing information that is neither relevant nor necessary to the workings of the Inland Revenue. The Government are unable to give a target for savings—which they seemed to suggest that they would be able to do, and which would of course be the plus for taxpayers. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case, as Baroness Hollis has said. The balance therefore seems to be pretty much all one way. The Government need to reconsider, in light of the concerns raised in the other place about this matter, the concerns that taxpayers may have about transfers of data. They would contend that the transfer of some data is necessary, but there is unease about the unnecessary transfer of data which may fall into the wrong hands.
  That brings me to my final, and main, point. I believe that, in this case, the contributory principle is being eroded. The Government say that that is not the case, but I want to press them on that slightly. Several times I have heard the Government, in the other place and this place, seeking to reassure everyone that the transfer and the amalgamation have nothing to do with the ending of the contributory principle. The Secretary of State made great play about that in the early part of his speech. Yet there were a number of cases when Baroness Hollis stopped short of any undertakings to the contrary or when it could be seen by her words that such a process was a possibility. Today, the Government, in the body of the Secretary of State, seemed also to indicate that, which I think that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead teased out.
  For example, on Second Reading in another place the noble Baroness said that the Bill would not end the contributory principle. She went on to say:
  "This Bill is not the vehicle for major alignment of tax and national insurance contributions. We want to work through that in consultation with representative bodies."
  The Secretary of State made roughly the same point this afternoon. He talked about what comes next. I thought that he indicated that there were possibilities that the Government would move towards the erosion, if not the ending, of the contributory principle.
  I think that that shows clearly that there are other motives. I wish that the Government were clear about these matters. I believe that they are clearly of a mind to do exactly that to which we have been referring. That would be a wrong move—and it is not only the
  52
  Opposition who take that view. In a recent qualitative study of perceptions of the national insurance system, Bruce Stafford, the author, found that
  "although the respondents lacked detailed knowledge of the benefit system, in their responses they were strongly committed to the contributory principle."
  So there is concern outside the House. The public find that what they feel strongly about is, without any serious or detailed debate, slowing being eroded, and that under the Bill that process could certainly be accelerated.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a number of times.
  There are some who openly wish to end the contributory principle, and say so. I note the Liberal Democrats on this point, which they take to its logical conclusion. I note also that in the other place Lord Goodhart said:
  "All this emphasises both the logic and convenience of treating NICs as a tax."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1043–48.]
  I think that the Liberal Democrats would accept that.
  The point of our opposing the Bill is the failure of the Government to be clear. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are clear, but the Government are either unclear or, in reality, do not want to say what the purpose of the Bill is all about. The Government are moving quite clearly in the direction I have described. Everything hinges simply on whether they are to be believed.
  Ultimately, the entire debate comes down to that. The Government say, "Trust us. We shall reassure you all by telling you what this is. We are not going to do what you say." I look at the Government's assurances and at what the Government have done since they came into office on means-testing—child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds; widows benefit, a change to bereavement benefit, minimum pension guarantee, extended means-testing with the WFTC, incapacity benefit, winter fuel payments and tuition fees. Each of these benefits is clearly an extension of means-testing or a use of the means-testing device.
  The Government have set their entire policy so that it focuses, as they say, on the bottom 10 per cent. I argue that the greater the level of means-testing, the more that that approach will act against many of those in the bottom 10 per cent. and against saving generally. That is contrary to the Government's wish. For example, with the Government's minimum pensions guarantee they will face the problem of having built a disincentive to saving for anyone below average earnings. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has been on record many times—I make no apology for quoting him—saying that means-testing penalises honesty, discourages work and harms thrift.
  The question is not whether the previous Government increased means-testing—[Interruption.] I do not deny that. My point is whether it is right to continue down that road. Will what the Government are doing deliver what they claim, which is a focus on the bottom 10 per cent., without seriously damaging those who are on marginal

  53
  and low incomes who would attempt to save? They will find themselves either driven to dishonesty or to making no savings, so that they fall within the bottom 10 per cent.
  Mr. Darling: In what respect are the winter fuel payments means-tested?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that a part of the winter fuel payments is dependent on income support. The right hon. Gentleman should check that himself.
  In essence, we do not believe that the Government have in any way made their case for the transfer. We do not believe that the assurances given are sufficient. We believe that, ultimately, the Government are en route to wind the basic state pension into some overall minimum income guarantee. The Bill is part of that process. If the Secretary of State disagrees with that, will he now come to the Dispatch Box and say categorically that there is no way in which the Government would seek to means test the basic state pension after the next election? Will he tell us that there is no reality in the idea that the Government will end up reducing the contributory principle and abolishing it? I believe that the Government have a clear idea of where they are going.
  Mr. Darling: The Green Paper on pensions clearly states that the basic state pension will remain universal and will not be means-tested. What is more, if the hon. Gentleman finds the time to read the Green Paper, he will see that it is very firmly rooted in the contributory principle.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The reality is that the Government have failed to commit themselves never to means-test the basic state pension or to wind it into any basic means-tested income. It is sophistry on the Government's part—smoke and mirrors.
  Mr. Chris Pond rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I am finishing.
  The Government have today set themselves on a course that will ultimately get rid of the contributory principle and end up with a means-tested focus on the bottom 10 per cent. There is no way that we can agree to that or trust them. It is a hidden measure, which will come about directly as a result of Government policy.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall make only two points. The first relates to the significance, as I see it, of what the Secretary of State said about the conclusion that he had reached during the past week. In the other place, the Bill was debated as one that changed the administration and moved to the Treasury the offices responsible for administering the national insurance side. The Secretary of State told us that in the past week he had concluded that policy should be transferred as well.
  When the Department of Social Security first learned of the Treasury's wish for such a transfer, there was deep unease. Unease about the Treasury's intentions was not limited to the DSS. We thought that, by the separation of administration from policy, the Department would be kept
  54
  intact. The Secretary of State made light of my intervention, when I said that in effect a large part of his Department was being given away. He said that he expected someone to comment on that, but he did not expect it to be me.
  When the Bill is enacted and the Secretary of State's intentions are realised, who will answer questions on the matter? I do not doubt that most people out there will still think that the DSS is paying their pension, but in this place and before Select Committees, Treasury officials will answer for the running of the national insurance scheme.
  We know that the national insurance scheme accounts for 40 per cent. of the Budget. It represents a major change for the Department to lose not just day-to-day running but policy making in that area.
  Mr. Webb: On a point of clarification, as I am not sure whether I understood what the Secretary of State said, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that responsibility not only for national insurance contributions but for national insurance benefits is to go to the Treasury, or will only the contributions side be transferred, leaving the Secretary of State still responsible for the benefits side?
  Mr. Field: As I understand it, the contributions side will be transferred—what people are paying, when and how. That is the most crucial aspect. I do not for a moment deny that the Department will be given the job of running the benefits as an outpost, but policy decisions about who gets what, when and how—the essence of politics as we understand it in this country—will disappear from the Department.
  That links up with my second point. I do not believe that all members of the Government fully comprehend the value that the country attaches to the contributory principle. Indeed, it is clear from the statements that he has made that the Chancellor does not.
  Following the Budget in which the Chancellor declared his intention to make the move that has already been referred to, he went on television after making his statement, as is customary. He talked about the national insurance tax. I thought that that gave away most of the game, for, although he might think of the measure as a tax, most people out there in the country think of it as anything but.
  We, as grand politicians, may think that the ordinary voters are hit with folly if they think of contributions as different from tax, but, as the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, the studies provide evidence that people think that, although they have to pay, they are earning something as well. The importance of that is that Labour Members are probably keener than Conservative Members—we must make exceptions for the Liberal Democrats here—to raise taxation to cover public services.
  If 40 per cent. of the Department of Social Security budget is thought of not as taxation but as contributions, and the earning of benefits in the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained at the start of his speech, and if we are lightly to dismantle that and teach people their folly—this is nothing to do with contributions and all to do with tax—Labour Members will have even greater difficulty raising the necessary revenue to ensure that we can provide the public services that we want.

  55
  About £40 billion is raised from individuals towards their national insurance benefits. They do not think of that as tax, but as separate from tax, so it is extreme folly to be considering going down a route that will drive it into people's minds that they are paying a tax.
  One of my concerns is that the move is not isolated. The Chancellor said in the Budget that he would align tax and national insurance thresholds, so there will be a particular point at which people move over: the lowest rate of tax will come into play and full national insurance contributions will be levied as well.
  At the moment, most people can see the difference between what is paid in tax and in national insurance, and therefore understand perfectly what the Chancellor is about in trying to establish a starting rate of tax of 10p in the pound, but they will be mightily confused when the same machinery and the same pay-as-you-earn slips tell them that the rate of tax is not 10p because, on top of that, they will be paying a lop national insurance tax.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is absolutely right to believe that we need to get the starting rate of tax down, and right to take on people who criticised him, before they were elected to the House, for not going down the allowances path. Nobody worries about what the tax allowances are. People do not tumble into constituency surgeries to say that they have decided not to work overtime, or not to take a new job, because the allowances will not permit that. They all talk about their marginal rate of tax.
  My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right to say that, if we are trying to ensure that people at the bottom are valued properly, and that there are real rewards in the system for them, they should have a low rate of tax. The right hand of the Chancellor is used for that, but his left hand is used to tidy up the operation—how much more simple it would be if the whole system were combined—and in his Budget broadcast he called it a national insurance tax.
  My worry about that approach is that, if the Chancellor ever manages to convince the electorate of what he is about, he will never achieve an incredibly important objective for this Government—a clear starting rate of tax of 10p in the pound. If he attempts to sew together these functions and combine them, saying, "Isn't that easy for business?"—never mind whether the service is better and never mind what service is provided, so long as we can say that it is better—we will all chant in unison on that point. However, people will quickly see that the national insurance contribution is not a contribution, but a tax and part of the tax system. I am worried, as are other hon. Members, that, when we get to that stage, we will dismantle national insurance rights.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is counter-evidence regarding the trend towards amalgamation of all taxes into one tax, including moves to hypothecate revenues from road pricing for public transport? There is no contradiction between amalgamation of the administration and realignment for labour market efficiency and the ring-fencing of national insurance contributions and benefits.
  Mr. Field: There would not be, except that that is the present system. A hypothecated contribution from
  56
  taxpayers as their national insurance contributions will be rolled up into a revenue operation. It will be more difficult for us to ensure that there is no contradiction in future.
  It is right that no Chancellor can allow the whole of the Budget to be hypothecated, because some areas are crucial to civilised life in a modern state. Many of us would not want taxes to be divided up and hypothecated. On this, as on so many issues, balance is important. Given that there is real resistance to rising tax rates, and that we won the election only because we had the Prime Minister as our leader and gave the most clear statement that we would not raise direct taxation, we are now embarking on an extraordinary policy.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: As my right hon. Friend knows, I, like him, defend the contributory principle and the rights that go with contributions. Does he concede that nothing in the Bill challenges the concept or the identity of the national insurance fund? Other Government policies, such as the working families tax credit, the proposals on national insurance contributions and the proposal for a state second pension, give a clear commitment to establishing eligibilities and entitlements even if no contribution has been made. That separation of the need to make contributions and the establishment of eligibility and entitlements is not a withdrawal of the commitment to the national insurance contributory principle, but rather a huge and ingenious extension of it.
  Mr. Field: Gosh, I wish I shared my hon. Friend's views. I might have thought that I was wrong even to speak in the debate if he had not mentioned the state second pension. It is clear from what those on the Treasury Bench say that, with the rebates, they expect most people earning more than £9,000 a year to be in private schemes. The people who remain will not pay contributions up front into the type of scheme that I want, with contributions raised so that they are equal citizens. There will be a mean-tested element.
  Mr. Cousins: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take account of some of the points I made, but I should like to pursue a further point. The state second pension, which credits everyone with an entitlement to £9,000 a year in terms of the value of contributions—whether or not that £9,000 a year has been earned—is an important extension of the national insurance contributory principle.
  Mr. Field: The operative word in my hon. Friend's intervention is "credits". We all know perfectly well that, sadly, credits are different from contributions. The Government have not introduced a scheme whereby contributions will give equal citizenship to those who are at the bottom of the pile as compared with other people.
  If we consider this measure with blinkers on—like one of those cart horses in old-fashioned pictures of the labour movement—my hon. Friend is right to say that nothing in the Bill leads to the scenario that I am describing. When we have passed the Bill, however—if we pass it—we will have started a momentum. How can the next stage logically be resisted, once we have agreed to the transfer of power for which the Bill provides?
  We are not debating a mere tidying-up operation; we are not debating simply the moving of furniture between Departments. We are discussing a much more

  57
  fundamental issue. Authority is to be transferred from one Department to another. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that we should not defend traditional departmental divisions just for the sake of it, there are reasons why we have different Departments, and why the Treasury does not run everything: the existence of different Departments means that differences in status, views and values can be brought to debate. In this instance, a whole area of policy is being given to the Treasury.
  A second question also concerns me. Does the Chancellor really see how his left hand will operate in relation to his right? When the Chancellor was an Opposition Member and most Opposition Members attacked his views on the starting rate of tax, I defended it, on the basis of the effect that it would have on the way in which people operated when the only opportunities were low pay and the chance to build on it with overtime. I do not believe, however, that the Chancellor has clearly thought out his idea of a national insurance tax. He will never be able to achieve that starting rate of tax if he conveys to the public that there will also be a 10p starting rate for national insurance. People are not that silly: most can add 10 and 10, and will know that the new starting rate of tax is 20 per cent.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, as we did when it was in the House of Lords. We welcome it for a number of reasons, but I welcome it particularly because it gives me an opportunity to show constructive opposition in action.
  It is, I think, well known that the welfare reform Bill will come to the House shortly. In my party, it has become known as the benefit cuts Bill, and I think the Government will find that we are unable to support the benefit cuts that they propose. We are therefore glad of the chance to demonstrate this evening that, when we agree with the Government we will vote with them, just as we will vote against them when we have fundamental differences with them. Incidentally, it is splendid to find that today we are in line not only with the Government, but with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).
  The Government are right to consider the long term. Here I take issue with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). All too often, the House considers only what will happen over the next few years, and what will happen until the next election. In this instance, the Government have shown that they are prepared to live with short-term costs in return for longer-term savings. I wish that they, and indeed the last Government, had done that more frequently.
  We support part I of the Bill—again, for a number of reasons, but perhaps for one reason in particular. As several hon. Members have pointed out, in practice national insurance contributions already have all the characteristics of a hypothecated tax rather than an insurance premium system. Those characteristics include the fact that the amount of benefit payable does not depend on the amount of contributions made during an individual's earning lifetime.
  Secondly, we know that a large part of the payments—as has been said, about 75 per cent.—are for pensions. Unlike insurance payments, these payments are made on a "pay as you go" basis. Thirdly, national insurance
  58
  contributions are already collected alongside direct taxes in the PAYE system. If they are already collected as a tax, it is logical for them to be administered alongside income tax, in a single system. Fourthly, as several of us know to our cost—those of us, for example, who expect pensions dependent on the state earnings-related pensions scheme—the pay-out that results from national insurance contributions during an earning lifetime can all too easily be changed by a Government's later actions. That has happened several times, most recently, sadly, with the cuts in widows benefits—due to be introduced under the welfare reform Bill. People who have made contributions over several years thinking that, if they died, their widows would receive a certain level of payments, are now seeing that those payments will not be anything like as large as they had hoped. The Government expect to make about £500 million-worth of annual savings there.
  Under the previous Government, various changes were made to the SERPS regulations, so that the entitlement that people were expecting originally as a result of payments through SERPS is not what they can expect now. In particular, we know that, as a result of a change under the previous Government several years ago, those who become widows shortly after 1 April 2000 will receive a lot less than those whose husbands die just before that date.
  Perhaps most important was the abolition of the pensions link to earnings. At that point, those who had expected larger pensions as a result of their national insurance contributions found that they were living in cloud cuckoo land: their pensions would be much smaller than they had previously expected.
  Therefore, Governments can make major and significant changes to people's expectations even after their contributions have been made. That means that, in practice, those contributions are much more of a tax than an insurance premium.
  Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his point, which is to defend the future entitlements to benefits of contributors, would really be improved and strengthened if, as seems to be the policy of his party, national insurance were regarded purely as a tax, and the national insurance fund and actuarial defence of the fund were done away with, which the Bill significantly does not do?
  Mr. Rendel: I think the hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my point. I was saying that it is already true that the contributions do not give people a definite pay-out afterwards; I was not saying that it should be true that they do. That in itself proves that the national insurance contributions that we pay now are already, in effect, more of a tax than an insurance premium.
  There is another reason why part I is particularly worth supporting. It involves exactly the opposite argument to the one advanced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It is welcome that people in our communities should recognise the fact that national insurance is already a form of tax. We are misleading them. It is a con trick to pretend to people that, by paying national insurance contributions, they are not, in practice, being taxed.
  I entirely agree that, if we con enough of the people enough of the time, it may be slightly easier to raise money out of them and then spend it in ways that we feel

  59
  are appropriate, but that is not an entirely honest way in which to do things. It is important that we in this place should be open, honest and properly accountable for what we do, and that we do not try to mislead people into thinking that they are paying something which, actually, they are not paying.
  Mr. Field: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's argument. He rightly gives such emphasis to the Liberal Democrats' involvement locally to reflect what people think. I am not advocating that we have a national policy of deceit. All I am asking is whether it is not a useful starting point that most people regard national insurance as different from taxation. Given the resistance to financing the policies that the hon. Gentleman's party would like to have and that the Government wish to continue to promote during the current Parliament, what is the point of trying to knock the fact into people's head and say, "How foolish of you to think of national insurance as a contribution towards your benefits; it is, in fact, merely a tax"?
  There is a major difference in people's minds. Taxation is that huge area of money that they lose and over which they do not have a direct say, whereas, with national insurance contributions, for all the worries that we have about Government actions on cutting benefits, people still feel that, in the main, they are well served by that fund.
  Mr. Rendel: I should not for one moment accuse the right hon. Gentleman of seeking to deceive people. I suggest that he is saying that people have been deceived, and that we should allow them to remain deceived. I believe, conversely, that we should ensure that people are no longer deceived but realise the truth of the situation—that, in practice, the two things are very similar.
  Mr. Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point made both by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and clarify whether the Liberal Democrats' policy is to do away entirely with the contributory principle? Is it their policy to do away with the national insurance fund? Is it their policy to do away with the actuarial defence of the national insurance fund?
  Mr. Rendel: The national insurance fund has, regardless, occasionally to be topped up by taxation: contributions alone do not fund the system. The defence of national insurance contributions being offered—that they are a form of insurance—has, therefore, long been discredited. Whether Liberal Democrats are in favour of that defence is irrelevant, as it is not available. It is only reasonable, decent and honest to admit that fact and to tell people what has happened.
  Mr. Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: No; I have already given way quite enough in this debate.
  60
  The Tories' reasoned amendment suggests two reasons why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The first is that the Bill would
  "facilitate the ending of the contributory principle".
  Although I suppose that they are right to say that, the Bill certainly would not necessitate ending the principle, and it would be wrong for us not to pass the Bill only to raise an artificial barrier to ending the principle.
  If the House wished, at some later date, to end the contributory principle, we should have a fair and reasoned debate on whether it would be right to do so. Although there might be differences between the three main parties about whether it would be right to end the principle, we should—for the reasons that have been given, some of which I have enumerated—address the issue at that point, and not erect artificial barriers today by failing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  It was unreasonable for the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green to say that it did not matter that the previous Government were largely responsible for ending any pretence that national insurance contributions are a form of insurance. Every year they were in office, they did so much to destroy the contributory principle and to increase reliance on means testing.
  The second part of the Tories' reasoned amendment mentions the "practical difficulties" of transferring functions. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, of course, right in saying that the national insurance recording system 2 has been a disaster, and that it gives us a severe warning about the difficulties of relying on major high-tech projects to deal with some of the problems of government. He was right also in that the Government have been forced to acknowledge the difficulties of NIRS2.
  I should like, nevertheless, to congratulate the Government on making no fewer than two U-turns in the past couple of weeks—as I am not one for thinking that making U-turns is a sign of weakness. I am delighted that the Government had the good sense to realise that they made a mistake and consequently to make a U-turn.
  The Government's first U-turn was made a couple of weeks ago, after the debate on the contributions uprating, when Ministers were under pressure for refusing to give compensation to the very poorest of those who had been affected by NIRS2. Only a few days later, during the debate on Third Reading in the other place, the Government decided to announce that they would, after all, make a U-turn and provide £10 compensation for all those who had been affected by NIRS2. The U-turn was very welcome, and I congratulate the Government on it.
  In the past few days, the Government made another U-turn, on the matter of widows who were asked, under NIRS2, to decide between a widows pension and a retirement pension. In answer to a written question that I tabled to Ministers, we have learnt that widows who were misled by NIRS2 and were unable to choose correctly—so that they might gain the maximum benefit—will be allowed to choose again, after NIRS2 has given them the right information. I congratulate the Government on that U-turn also.
  Liberal Democrats support the Bill. As other hon. Members have already said, the provisions in part I have long been Liberal Democrat policy. I understand that part II was based largely on a suggestion made in the other

  61
  place by Lord Goodhart, in last year's debate on the Social Security Act 1998. We therefore welcome part II also. Part III deals primarily with a technical matter.
  We do not believe that the Tories' reasoned amendment carries any real weight. We believe that it is more than a little hypocritical, and hope that it will be not be supported by the House.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I suppose that I have to declare a sort of interest, as I am one of the hon. Members representing the city of Newcastle, where the Contributions Agency is headquartered. I suppose that I also have a small claim to fame—you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any small claim to fame in the House is one that should certainly be pressed—in that the national insurance recording system computer is headquartered in my constituency. However, I should add that, fortunately—as you will also understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—one represents people, not computer systems.
  I support the Bill. However, if there had been any indication that its passage would lead to a major loss of employment in my own city, I should of course not be supporting it. If it proposed any major loss of the administrative functions currently performed by the Contributions Agency, I should not be supporting it. If the Bill posed any threat to the contributory principle—as outlined by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—I should not be supporting it.
  I firmly believe that it cannot be right for the United Kingdom to have such a multiplicity of revenue collection services, and that it must be right to bring together the major revenue collection services. Amalgamation of the Contributions Agency with the Inland Revenue is long overdue, and I hope that that amalgamation will eventually be followed by amalgamation of Customs and Excise with the Inland Revenue. It cannot be right to have parallel revenue collection systems, which are extremely expensive to mount, all duplicating one another's work and imposing a burden both on taxpayers and on those with whom they have to deal.
  It cannot be right to continue parallel revenue collection services especially now that we have been given an example of computer systems development and failure. That failure demonstrates the need for administrative unification of the administration services and information technology that supports revenue collection services.
  I seek some assurance from Ministers on information technology. I believe that we should proceed as rapidly as we can in achieving unification of the information technology underpinning revenue collection, contributions and benefits. I hope that the Government are fully committed to eventual unification of the computer systems and data networks of the Contributions Agency, the Benefits Agency and the Inland Revenue; to full implementation of the intentions of the national insurance recording system project; to unification of housing benefit with the Benefits Agency; and, ultimately, to bringing the information handling of all those benefit distribution and revenue collection services into one system.
  There are practical issues for Newcastle. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there is a major private finance initiative project called Prime, begun under the previous
  62
  Government, which will rationalise the Newcastle sites of the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency. I should like an assurance that the project will go ahead in its existing form. Only recently a Newcastle estates partnership was formed, to be run by the Contributions Agency, to take forward the management of the PFI estate project on behalf of the Department of Social Security. Where will responsibility for the project lie when the Contributions Agency is transferred to the Inland Revenue? I should like clarification on where the administrative drive and accountability for the Newcastle estates partnership are to be. Is that to remain with the DSS, whose PFI project it is, or will the responsibility for driving that forward to be transferred with the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue? Those are important housekeeping issues for the city of Newcastle. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify them.
  I should like to make a plea for a small group of manual workers caught by one consequence of the merger of the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has a policy of not employing people over 60. The Contributions Agency allows people to work after 60 if they can still make a proper contribution to the service. A very small number of workers are caught not knowing what their employment prospects are. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will allow the current employment practices of the Contributions Agency to be extended for that small group, many of whom are low-paid manual workers performing routine functions such as security and portering. They should be able to continue their work without their prospects being affected by the administrative change of functions. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the prospects of casual and short-time employees of the Contributions Agency will not be varied because of the transfer to the Inland Revenue.
  The Government wisely said that the Contributions Agency, as it then was, would have the policing function for the minimum wage. It would be sensible if the policing function for the working families tax credit were also transferred to what would have been the Contributions Agency. Those important administrative points need to be clarified.
  A broader matter has been introduced in the debate that I do not regard as relevant—the future of national insurance contributions. I maintain a full defence of the contributory principle, the principle of national insurance contributions and the eligibilities and entitlements that go with them. The Liberal Democrats' policy, in so far as it has been made clear this evening—which it has not, to a significant extent—is confusing and worrying.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm from his constituency experience what I know from having visited the Contributions Agency—that, far from the contributory principle being dead, the staff, who are the hon. Gentleman's constituents, make enormous efforts to ensure that people's contributions are worked out to the nearest week? The public believe that they are contributing to their pension, not paying a tax. That is why the contributory principle is important to staff and to the general public.
  Mr. Cousins: It grieves me slightly to have to agree with the hon. Gentleman rather than the Liberal Democrats. Without prejudice to wider political issues, I

  63
  would instinctively prefer to agree with the Liberal Democrats than with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, on this occasion I agree with him. The rigour and accuracy with which an enormous number of contribution records have been maintained over generations are among the essential data handling problems that have proved central to the difficulties of NIRS2. The fact that there is a problem is an enormous tribute to this country's historical commitment to national insurance and to the rigour and accuracy with which that information has been maintained by Contributions Agency staff over many years. I am sure that nothing in the Bill puts that at risk. I am sure that Ministers will seek to clarify any such issues that may worry hon. Members.
  I should like clarification of one minor issue arising from the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. I do not regard the transfer of the policy functions of the Contributions Agency as in any way threatening if the functions are those relating to the national insurance contributions system. It would be a possible problem and cause for anxiety if policy for entitlement and eligibility were transferred to the Inland Revenue. It would be helpful to have it on the record that that is not the case. The policy for entitlement and eligibility should clearly remain with the Department of Social Security. On that basis, I am happy to say that I shall cheerfully support the Bill.
  6.8 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I have tried hard to follow the logic of the transfer of functions from the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue, but I have failed to grasp the reasons. I support the reasoned amendment. The Secretary of State, who I regret is no longer in his place, failed to make an adequate case, so he will fail to secure my support for a Second Reading.
  The Secretary of State challenged me on the basis that the Conservatives had not taken business views sufficiently into account. The proposal to transfer the agency to the Inland Revenue will place a real burden on business, particularly with the computerisation of the programme to adapt the payroll, and will put an increased cost on the employer as the operator of the programme.
  I have taken time over the past two days, since we learned that we were to have this debate today, to ring round and speak to some business leaders, including those representing large, medium and small businesses. Business leaders of companies, large and small, recognise that the Bill will place an increased administrative burden on them, particularly smaller employers. The level and sheer variety of contributions set out in schedule 2 are huge, but the Secretary of State did not refer to that. Many contributions are one-off, and not on-going. For example, statutory sick pay and maternity pay are normally for a limited duration, and are paid over weeks or months, not years. Other contribution schemes are on-going, such as personal and occupational pension schemes.
  Presumably it will be up to the employer to register the information on contributions with the Inland Revenue and, presumably, information will be transferred to the Inland Revenue. I accept that, at first sight, this may appear to be a simplified procedure, but the Government
  64
  are trying to sell the policy as a business-friendly one, and as one that is welcomed by business. That is not the message that I have received—perhaps because I am in opposition, and businesses may wish to share their concerns with an Opposition Back Bencher.
  Businesses are extremely concerned that the transfer will impose an administrative burden on them, and they asked the Government to grant them time to prepare adequately for that burden. That point was not taken up by the Secretary of State. He said that the appointed day was just 14 months off—1 April 2000—so I cannot see any evidence that the time for preparation requested by the business community has been worked into the Government's timetable. Perhaps some light will be thrown on that matter in the winding-up speech tonight.
  Businesses have expressed concern at the role of the tax inspectors in the process. Perhaps tax inspectors are not the most beloved of all functionaries or officials, but real power is to be concentrated in their hands. It is my understanding that the inspector will have two good reasons to check the books of businesses—first, to investigate the employee's tax contributions under PAYE, and, secondly, to investigate the contributions, entitlements and payments under the schemes listed in schedule 2.
  I wonder whether the Government have considered the concerns of business—we have heard no comment. Inland Revenue inspectors will be dealing with the scheme, and that will raise the hackles of the business community. The Government may wish to respond to that point this evening.
  Businesses have referred also to their concern at adequately ensuring the confidentiality of their employees' details, which will be available on in-house computers. The current system clearly ensures greater confidentiality and compares favourably with the new approach of transferring the contributions from the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue, and transferring responsibility again to the employers. I was mildly surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to that issue, which was raised in Committee in another place. I wonder whether the Government have taken those concerns on board.
  The threat to confidentiality is real and emerges through the pooling of information, as proposed by clause 6 of the Bill, which allows for information being held by the Board to be supplied
  "to any person providing services to the Board".
  What controls will be put in place to make sure that confidentiality will not be breached? I would like some satisfaction on that point, so I can allay the fears of businesses.
  Making the Inland Revenue responsible for administering not just tax and the work of the Contributions Agency but the working families tax credit will create a huge bureaucratic burden. Will there be opportunities adequately to question the Treasury Ministers responsible on the Floor of the House and in Select Committees? If not, that raises the question of genuine and adequate democratic control. Which Ministers will be responsible for replying to our concerns on behalf of constituents?

  65
  I was slightly surprised that the Secretary of State was dismissive, particularly when he said that the Bill was technical. However, he got into some difficulty when he moved on to broad policy issues. The questions that I have raised deserve answers.
  What will happen to those staff who, through the DSS, normally administer the work of the Contributions Agency—most, but not all, of whom are based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)? Have the staff been consulted? Will they be required to move, following a merger and a transfer, to the Inland Revenue? Do the Government stand by the statement made by Baroness Hollis in the other place on 10 December last year, that 200 jobs will be lost countrywide—most of them, perhaps, in Newcastle? Is that a conservative estimate? Will more than 200 jobs be lost throughout the country?
  I wish to place on record my concern at the extension of means-testing and the move towards ending the contributory system that pervade the Bill. The Government are cutting and manifestly means-testing pensions. The latest example of that is the Government's new bereavement benefit, which is causing great concern to my constituents.
  Mr. Leigh: The Secretary of State repeated the commitment on behalf of the Government that there was no intention to means-test the basic state pension. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a worthless commitment since, by 2050, the basic state pension will be worth only 7 per cent. of average earnings? The Government are therefore ensuring that most pensioners will be in receipt of a pension that bears no relation to what they have put in through taxation or national insurance contributions.
  Miss McIntosh: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  The Government have asked to be judged on their record. They were elected on a pledge to cut social security expenditure but—by their own admission—the contribution to social security bills throughout the country will go up by £1.5 billion as a result of the working families tax credit. The Government would like to be judged also on their record on pensions. However, they are already means-testing pensions. The latest example is the new bereavement benefit. Widows and widowers with no dependants will have their benefits withdrawn after six months, in spite of contributions having been paid on their behalf by their spouse. The Government have clearly started on the slippery slope towards means-testing, and the Bill expedites the process.
  I have not been persuaded by the Government's arguments this evening. They have failed to address the concerns of business and of those who will no longer benefit from the new bereavement benefit after six months. It is clear that the bureaucratic overload on one particular Department, the Treasury, will be extreme. The costs of the transfer wildly outweigh any long-term benefits that the measure will bring. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, it is a camouflage. I am persuaded that at the heart of the Bill is a camouflage hiding the introduction of a 10p starting rate for income tax by simply introducing a 10p national insurance starting rate. That would take us back to a 20p starting rate, which sounds terribly familiar. I support the amendment and I oppose Second Reading.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: This is another example of Labour acting decisively in the interests of business, the economy and good government, whereas the previous Government, under the auspices of Sir George Young, simply prevaricated and pathetically failed to recognise the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that if he is referring to another Member of Parliament he should do so in the third person and not by name.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed.
  The previous Government stumbled on with the somewhat inefficient and duplicatory system and made it worse by bungling over the contract for the new national insurance recording system, NIRS2. The new Government faced a legacy of structural inadequacies that had not been faced up to, alongside impending operational chaos. They took and continue to take a long view, sorting out the operational as well as the structural problems.
  The Bill represents a better service for both business and consumers, arising from an amalgamated national insurance and PAYE income tax system. It has been welcomed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which says that it should reduce red tape; by the Public Accounts Committee, which says that it represents a significant reduction in the administrative burden on employers; and, generally, by the Confederation of British Industry, the Financial Times and others.
  The Bill will make it easier to align national insurance and PAYE. I know that there are some reservations about whether we should do that. Liberal Members have mentioned the report from Bath university in November 1998 and were bullish about how alignment would get rid of structural distortions in the labour market and help employment. Employers are all for it, and I realise that there are some reservations about that, but it is good in principle to have the option available.
  The change makes logical sense, because the Inland Revenue already collects 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions. Having two separate agencies seems somewhat daft, as the Inland Revenue is already the collection agency for the Department of Social Security.
  The primary case against the change, urged by the Opposition, is that it undermines the contributory principle and is objectionable as part of a trend towards means testing. It is true that the major growth in benefits has been in means testing, but that does not necessarily imply a threat to the contributory principle; it simply reflects the more complicated world in which we live.
  National insurance was based on a world in which everyone worked 35 or 40 hours a week for perhaps 40 years; it was not set up to cater for the complexities of part-time work, disability, women in work, a mobile jobs market with shifting careers and the complex needs of targeted benefits. The old contributory method did not cater adequately for those complexities, but that is not to say that it is not of value in itself.
  The contributory principle is good for pensions, but means testing and category benefits, such as child benefit, are appropriate for particular groups with

  67
  particular circumstances, as they can be adapted to take account of a changing job market and specific needs such as those of families. That is why, since the 1960s and 1970s, the major growth of benefits has been in three major areas: housing benefit and in-work benefits, which are income related, and category benefits such as those reflecting rights for the disabled and others.
  There is a misunderstanding in this debate, because although the administration merger is a necessary condition for alignment of national insurance and tax, its introduction does not mean that we need such an such alignment; and even if we have that alignment, that does not mean that we get rid of the contributory principle, as I attempted to say when I mentioned hypothecation and ring fencing. There will be a mixed economy for the delivery of benefits, and that is right and modern and should not be objected to.
  The Opposition argued that the previous Government ruled out the merger on the basis of cost, but the present discounted value to the Exchequer is positive: the front-loaded costs of £16 million in the first year and £17 million the next year, moving into positive savings of about £4 million after that, discounted over time, will give a benefit to the Exchequer; and the real benefit that has not been counted is the enormous cost saving to the business community, which will increase competitiveness for the British economy. There is an especial significance for small and medium enterprises: with an integrated service they will not have to tie up entrepreneurial time on tedious accountancy for different agencies or spend money on expensive accountants.
  It has also been argued that the merger is poorly timed as it comes in the middle of an information technology crisis caused by NIRS2. We know that major problems are occurring, but the simple fact is that those problems are contained in the NIRS2 system, which will simply be moved over, so they have no bearing on the decision.
  NIRS2 was purchased from Andersen Consulting after it tendered at about a third of the price of its nearest rival. In spring 1996, about three months after the contract had been agreed, there was a secret meeting between Andersen Consulting and the then Chancellor, Secretary of State for Social Security and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at which, as was recently disclosed to the Public Accounts Committee, they agreed to rip up the contract and replace the big bang approach—with everyone put in place at once and everything running hunky-dory—with a step-by-step approach.
  The enormous problems that are arising—for instance, about 14.5 million contributions had not been posted correctly at the end of last year—are linked with that changed contract and with the mismatch of expectations and targets inherent in a defective agreement made behind closed doors by former Ministers and Andersen Consulting.
  At the end of last year, only 61 per cent. of national insurance postings were in place, when the internal target was 90 per cent. When asked to comment, Andersen Consulting was comfortable with that fact and said that there was nothing wrong with the system and there must be something wrong with the Department's verification, or the validation of individual contributions, or perhaps
  68
  the employers did not really understand the forms. It said that it was conceivable that something was wrong but that it was nothing to do with the system itself.
  It appears that the contract is drawn up so as to allow Andersen Consulting to avoid paying any real compensation, although there are compensation clauses. We are in the throes of putting the system back together to create a sensible regime and make progress, which I welcome, alongside the structural changes that we are implementing.
  The merger makes sense from a business and a Government administration point of view. The legacy of operational difficulties that we have inherited is irrelevant to it. In my view, there is no conflict with the contributory principle and we should support the Bill with vigour.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Some hon. Members, on arriving here today, will have expected the debate to be highly technical and of interest only to those with a detailed knowledge of social security matters. However, it has been very interesting, especially because of the mini-debate between the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Both seemed to accept that the Bill was a fatal blow to the contributory principle that lies at the heart of our social security system. However, there was a slight dispute between them, as the hon. Member for Newbury seemed to imply that the contributory principle was already dead and that we should be realistic and kill it off finally with the Bill.
  I do not think that the contributory principle is dead at all. As I said earlier, it is taken very seriously by those who work in the Department and by those who pay contributions for their entire lives. I once stood behind a constituent of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) as she worked on a computer to calculate, to the nearest week, the contributions made by a particular gentleman over a working life of 40 years. Her hope was that that man's pension would bear some relation to what he had paid in contributions throughout his working life.
  The Bill proposes merging the Contributions Agency into the Treasury. I should have liked it to be far more radical and interesting and to give greater independence to the Contributions Agency. The Bill that I should have preferred would have created a national contributions agency, based firmly and squarely on actuarial principles: people would pay a set proportion of income into a personalised fund that could be used later to fund their pensions. That would appear to be a radical reform, but it has been tried in many countries and there is nothing new about it.
  We should be moving in that direction, but we are going the opposite way. The Government are not personalising the pension system at all. The Bill is about the Department of Social Security losing half its function. That is very serious. The DSS will be—primarily and exclusively—a delivery system. It will have no real involvement in raising the taxes and the contributions that fund the benefits that it pays out to people. It will be about as important as the man who delivers the milk, who has no input about what goes into the bottle. The Treasury will decide everything.
  The Secretary of State gave the game away when he opened the debate. He is a former Treasury man, and he said that he had no qualms about the Treasury taking

  69
  more and more control over such matters. He is the Trojan horse, placed in charge of the Department by the Government to ensure its subservience to the Treasury. That is what the debate is all about. The Department of Social Security is paying for the bad karma—to use a topical word—of the Secretary of State's previous life as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he saw the reforms that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was trying to introduce.
  When I think of the future role of the DSS after this Bill and others like it are passed, I am reminded of a debate that took place in my family a few years ago. True, our income was large, but our outgoings were even larger, and for two days we discussed what we could save. Could we save on the mortgage, or on other big expenditures? We finally decided that we could save on birdseed.
  The point of that story is that it does not matter that the Secretary of State will be dispersing £90 billion. He will have no real control over his budget and will no longer run an independent Department. That is a matter for sadness. It is an attack on something which all hon. Members should support—the contributory principle. Labour Members will troop through the Lobby tonight to support the Bill. They should be ashamed of themselves.
  6.34 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I wonder whether he fed his birds with cake crumbs as a result of his savings measures. I am also somewhat intrigued to be taking part in a debate in which the Bill has been made out to be the end of welfare as we know it. Either I am missing something, or some extremely creative reading is going on.
  The Bill is both necessary and welcome. When the Government came into office less than two years ago, the welfare system was in dire need of modernisation. That need was quite independent of any change of policy. The status quo was unacceptable: the technology was outdated and the system impossible to administer. There was a lack of cohesion, and benefit chimneys built up as a result.
  I am intrigued that so many members of the Select Committee on Social Security are in the Chamber today. I am sure that they will recall a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at which the direction of the Government's welfare policy was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that we had grown up with a system under which Governments collected taxes into one pocket and handed out benefits from another. That system completely ignored the fact that the Government want people to work if they can, but he said that there was no way to get them back to work without some co-ordination of tax collection and the administration of benefits. My right hon. Friend told us that the philosophy of the Treasury and the Department of Social Security was to make work pay, which involved some co-ordination between taxation and benefits.
  The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are the two main tax-collecting agencies, and the national insurance collection system also plays a part. However, the national insurance system, since its introduction after the second world war, has never been truly
  70
  insurance based. To some extent, the argument about hypothecation is phoney, as the fund is actuarially ring-fenced. That is significant.
  Mr. Cousins: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a matter that hon. Members too often forget? At present annuity rates, to build up a personal pension plan that would bring in income at the basic pension rate would probably require establishing a contribution fund of about £80,000. As a matter of practical fact, millions of our constituents receive basic pension entitlements far more valuable at the basic rate than anything that they could aspire to if payment were made simply on the basis of what they could afford to contribute. In that fundamental and obvious sense, the national insurance system is still very much part of our social fabric.
  Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend's intervention does not contradict the point that I am making. Also, low annuity rates reflect low inflation and a steady economy, so the whole economic climate must be taken into account when considering those rates.
  I do not suggest that national insurance and the contributory principle have come to an end, but I draw the House's attention to some research by the Department of Social Security that was published in August 1998. The report stated:
  "respondents had little direct experience of benefits, and only a hazy perception of the structure of the National Insurance scheme; few had thought systematically about how they would cope with unemployment, sickness absence from work or retirement; in the absence of direct experience, media reports of policy debates or of issues such as fraud could be influential in shaping their views".
  In view of the time, I shall not go into further detail, but the report makes it clear that a myth has been built up that members of the public have a clear idea of how taxation and national insurance contributions work.
  I also recall some research that found that one third of school leavers did not realise that money would be deducted from their wages. Never mind what the various deductions might be—they did not think that anything would be deducted.
  Let us focus on what the Bill will do, which is significant. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his opening speech, the Bill does not, at this stage, change the way in which national insurance contributions are calculated or how they interact with taxation. However, it is a first step in bringing together that which must be brought together in the interests of good public policy and administration.
  I beg the House's indulgence while I remind hon. Members of what the task force headed by Martin Taylor said when it considered the problems of alignment between income tax and national insurance. That is not a theological debate, but an examination of the concrete question of why the two systems do not work properly. The first main area of concern was the base of charge: income tax is levied on earned income and benefits in kind, whereas national insurance contributions do not currently reflect benefits in kind. Reliefs and rebates are inconsistent in relation to taxation; the periods of assessment are different; and the structures of charge are different. If the Government are serious about making work pay, the basis of national insurance and taxation must be aligned to some extent.

  71
  Martin Taylor said:
  "At present, benefits in kind are not subject to NICs, other than the employer-only Class 1A charge on company cars and car fuel. This gives employers an advantage in offering benefits in kind, so reducing the NICs yield and distorting competition. However, it does not look straightforward to value benefits in kind, at least on anything like the income tax rules".
  He also argued that there was clear evidence that business and employers welcomed the combining of national insurance contributions and taxation, because that would be easier to administer. The previous Government failed to address the difference between the costs to Government and the costs to business. There may be considerable costs to the Government, but we must look seriously at the reaction of business.
  I wish the Bill went further in one respect, which relates to schedule 6 and exchange of information. We are all concerned about confidentiality and privacy, but if we are—
  Miss McIntosh: We are.
  Ms Stuart: So are Labour Members. We have all seen constituents who complain about having to fill in endless forms to claim benefits and say, "But I told them before …" It seems to them that the same form has to be filled in again and again. That causes considerable hindrance, especially to pensioners who become sick and tired of filling in forms. There is scope for the greater transfer and integration of information gathered for benefits or taxation purposes, and that will help people in need. Similarly, we need to ensure that fraud is designed out of the system, for if fraud is prevented in the first place, we can stop wasting resources on chasing fraudsters.
  I urge the House to take the Bill at face value. It is important administratively and will allow us to move forward to the second stage. Move forward we must, because the current benefits and taxation systems are unacceptable. I hope that the Opposition will see the error of their ways and welcome the Bill as I do.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Social Security and has now moved on to higher, if not necessarily better, things.
  I agree that we have to move forward; no one would try to defend the status quo. However, two things struck me as I listened to the debate. The first was the Secretary of State's announcement that the date of implementation would be 1 April 1999. I am nervous, because I fear that that is too soon. Anyone who thinks that the transfer will be a straightforward and easy piece of work, to be carried out at administrative office level, is mistaken.
  I understand that there is a political imperative: Governments always want to get things done and move forward, because if they fail to do so they are criticised for not moving fast enough. However, in my experience such changes, if they are not timed properly, can cause far more trouble than they are worth. Regardless of whether
  72
  changes are right or wrong, they have to be planned carefully. My concern is that we are trying to make the change too quickly and that the benefits of the change might be lost to us as a result. We might be unable to capture the positive results of the change if we do too much, too quickly.
  The second point that struck me is that there is a huge cultural difference between the two Departments which has not been recognised in the debate. The way in which the Inland Revenue works, the time scales to which it does its calculations, its systems and its methods are entirely different from those employed by people working in DSS agencies such as the Contributions Agency.
  I went on a brief visit to Newcastle with the Social Security Committee a few months ago. I was deeply impressed by the commitment of George Bertram and his staff and I am sure that they will make every effort to ensure that the change works. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) will agree that that is so. We often fail to recognise the work done on our behalf by civil servants in the agencies, so it is worth putting it on the record that they do a splendid job keeping a creaking system going, sometimes at great personal cost and for little reward. However, the combination of the culture shift that is needed and the time scale within which the change is planned cause me concern.
  I support the Bill and will be happy to vote for its Second Reading. It comes as no shock to me to learn that there are to be changes to the tax structure and that the Government have in mind a design that aligns income tax and national insurance. That is obvious to anyone who is aware of the fact that, from this April, the Government are introducing changes to the employers class 1 contributions, which are to be raised to a new earnings threshold set at the level of personal tax allowances. There is clearly a big change in view. However, I should like to quote a couple of sentences from the Green Paper on welfare reform and ask a few questions about them.
  The Green Paper said:
  "future reforms will align the lower earnings limit with the single person's tax allowance ensuring that no one pays National Insurance for the first £81 of their weekly earnings and that all employees earning between £64 and £81 would have their rights to benefit protected".
  It is the last clause—
  "would have their rights to benefit protected"—
  that causes me concern. If the lower earnings limit is to be raised in that way, how will those earning less than that be protected? What physical administrative steps are to be taken to keep track of their earnings? How does that fit in with the continuation of the contributory principle? That is an important question, because it is illustrative of how confused the Government might become in future if they are not clear about the direction in which they are going.
  My second question is whether we should now recognise that national insurance contributions are a "social security tax". That is how the Chancellor inadvertently described NICs in a broadcast—a Freudian slip of which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminded the House earlier. If NICs are not such a tax, are we safe in the knowledge that the insurance principle is safe in the Labour Government's hands? The hon. Member for Edgbaston referred to a piece of research

  73
  of which I, too, am aware, our having shared it as members of the Social Security Committee. It reveals a huge vagueness and a lack of clear information about the relationship between contributions and entitlements.
  I am perfectly willing to support this technical measure, but I am unhappy about slipping towards an abolition of the contributory principle without proper debate. Whether the principle is right or wrong, it is important to debate it properly and coherently. The Social Security Committee has already set its sights on an inquiry into the contributory principle—it has devoted a huge chunk of its yearly programme to that question. It may be that the principle can be modernised and given a new lease on life or that we should recognise reality—as my party believes—and abolish it. However, it is undeniable that we need a debate and that the Government should lead it. They should not seek to make changes by default. If the Secretary of State is to be believed, the Government need have no fears about that process. However, we shall hold it against the Secretary of State if he tries to achieve change through some back-door means or political sleight of hand.
  The Secretary of State was correct to say that he will inform the House about existing practical difficulties with the national insurance recording system, NIRS2. However, the problem is much more fundamental. I think that our constituents deserve protection and compensation and I am worried that PFI—the private finance initiative—is no longer a sensible mechanism to consider when it comes to huge computerised systems in any Government Department.
  I have another subsidiary question that relates to my earlier culture point. Andersen Consulting is to introduce a huge new system, NIRS2, into the Inland Revenue, but Electronic Data Services does all Inland Revenue computing at present. I foresee huge interface problems. It is a question of culture which I believe will be almost impossible to address between now and 1 April. I urge the Government to conduct a full-scale review of the mega computer data processing information technology projects with a view to ascertaining their future feasibility. I am sure that the National Audit Office will insist on such an inquiry.
  I am interested in clause 20—it raises a point to explore in Committee—which refers to the ultra vires payment of nearly £500 million. Although there was a legislative duty to make some pension payments under the contracted-out money purchase schemes, there was no authority within the Pensions Act 1995 to finance them through the national insurance fund. That is a huge error and a huge amount of money. How was it discovered? Did the National Audit Office pick it up? That mega mistake allowed the Government to spend, ultra vires, £500 million in public money and, if the National Audit Office did not find it, I would like to know who did.
  I am prepared to support the Bill, but the Government must move slowly in taking this administrative step. I hope that the Government will undertake to conduct a proper debate about the social insurance scheme principle before taking any steps down the road to diminution or change. The House of Commons must have a proper chance to debate the issues.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am delighted to see so many Labour Members in the Chamber to hear my contribution. The Bill raises some important issues, and I am delighted that the Government have allocated a full day of parliamentary time in which to discuss them.
  It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend in prospect, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who proposed a debate on the contributory principle. The Bill raises questions about the future of the principle that are mentioned explicitly in the Conservative reasoned amendment, which I shall address in my brief remarks.
  The Conservative amendment urges hon. Members not to vote for the Bill because it will facilitate the ending of the contributory principle. Would that necessarily be such a bad thing? The national insurance system was introduced in the 1940s, with flat-rate contributions paying for flat-rate benefits. That was not pure insurance because the insurance premium paid did not relate to the risk of receiving benefit. The classic example is that male and female employees paid much the same contributions although they were entitled to pensions whether they lived to be 60 or 80. The system did not look much like pure insurance initially and, as time went on, it began to look less and less like an insurance system.
  Earnings-related benefits and partly earnings-related contributions were introduced in the 1960s. Contributions became more earnings related in the 1970s and earnings-related pensions were introduced. During the 1980s—it is ironic that the Conservatives should be moving this reasoned amendment—national insurance rowed back from its high water mark of the late 1970s. The Conservatives made several significant changes, one of which was increasing national insurance contributions while cutting national insurance benefits. That is a clear erosion of any residual contributions principle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has already enunciated the official Liberal Democrat position, which allows me to indulge in some free thought, unfettered by the usual shackles of party discipline—I say that only to make my hon. Friend a touch nervous. What is the contributory principle that the Conservatives are so keen to defend and believe might be undermined by the Bill? It is that there is some close link between contributions and benefits. However, it is clear from the debate that any such link is extremely tenuous and is growing increasingly more so.
  The case study in this area must be pensions. They are by far the largest item of contributory benefit expenditure and, if they do not honour the contributory principle truly, we might as well give up and go home. It has been said that the Bill does not involve abolition of the national insurance fund: a separate national insurance fund and a separate consolidated fund will continue. What a joke. What is the point of having a separate national insurance fund? If it does not have enough money, it is topped up through general taxation. Therefore, why preserve the farce that national insurance contributions are any different from general taxation? I would go further than that. More than half of national insurance revenues come from employer national insurance contributions that have no insurative content. So, the whole thing is a complete sham.

  75
  On the benefit side, in what sense are pensions—the main national insurance benefit—linked to national insurance contributions? The answer is that there is hardly any link. Growing numbers of people will reach old age and enjoy full entitlement to the basic state pension. These days, one must try quite hard to avoid that full entitlement in old age. What is the point of having all the paraphernalia for keeping records for 40 or 50 years when, at the end of the day, there is a flat-rate benefit? That is not insurance; it is taxation. We are no worse off for that.
  We must ask ourselves a fundamental question: what would we lose if we abolished the national insurance contributory system? We would lose national insurance benefits as a category. Why do we have separate national insurance benefits as opposed to means-tested or categorical benefits? It seems to me that there is only one defence of separate national insurance benefits: people feel more positive about claiming them. There is less stigma and thus less of a problem with take-up.
  That is also true of categorical benefits: there is no stigma associated with claiming child benefit or the age addition to the old-age pension. In the case of pensions—the main contributory benefit—we should do away with the farce that it is all to do with contributions. We should pay pensions to people as of right and build on the 25p age addition, which is not contributory because it is paid in full to anyone who receives a pension. It is categorical. The 25p age addition has all the qualities that we desire and, if we build on it and move to a system in which the basic state pension is tiered with age, we will be able to target poverty effectively without relying on means-testing. The whole point of national insurance benefits is to reach people about whom we might be worried, but that can be done through other means, principally through the basic state pension, tiering that to age.
  My final reflection on national insurance benefits is that they are a system not of inclusion, but of social exclusion. As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) said, those benefits were designed for a world of male, full-time workers. In other words, they exclude large numbers of women from benefits. Do we want to preserve that system into the 21st century? Clearly not, in my judgment. Most people receive basic pensions, but many women and low-paid workers are excluded. Why not move to a system of categorical benefits for pensioners?
  In conclusion, there is no case whatsoever for a separate system in which national insurance contributions go into a pot—if there is not enough money in it we find more from somewhere else—and in which we pay out a categorical benefit to elderly people which excludes only a few vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is right to say that we need a debate on this subject, but the Conservatives' reasoned amendment which suggests that we should not vote for the Bill because it would undermine the contributory principle is fundamentally flawed.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: There is a general sense in the House that the winding-up speeches in this debate should not be too long, so I shall try to be brief and I hope I shall be forgiven for not dealing with all the individual contributions in the detail that a great many of them deserve.
  76
  The debate has been a memorable example of the utility of Parliament and of Second Reading debates, because what was regarded by many hon. Members—and, no doubt, most people in the country—as a Bill that dealt with a boring administrative adjustment under a boring bureaucratic title has been revealed as a momentous and extremely damaging step towards the destruction of our national insurance system.
  Not only has the decision of my hon. Friends and me to oppose the Bill been thoroughly vindicated by what has emerged regarding its true nature and intent, but we have had high drama—a chasm of difference on this subject has emerged within the Labour party. The Secretary of State has gone on the record this evening as saying that the Government are examining the whole contributory principle—so the cat is out of the bag. The agenda is absolutely clear. Some Labour Back Benchers have reacted with necessary horror. I refer to the distinguished contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who described the move as extreme folly and an extraordinary policy, as indeed it is.
  Labour Back Benchers who are more obviously loyal—I think that that is the polite description—have promoted an even more far-reaching agenda and suggested that the Bill ought to go the whole hog and entirely remove the separate character of our national insurance system.
  It was obvious to all of us who read the Bill when it was published that it represents, at the very least, the abject subjugation of the Department of Social Security to the Treasury. The Bill is full of phrases such as
  "such payments by way of adjustment as the Secretary of State determines (in accordance with any directions of the Treasury)",
  and
  "such payments by way of adjustment as the Inland Revenue may determine",
  and
  "any determination by the Secretary of State under that subsection must be made in accordance with any directions given by the Treasury."
  The Bill represents complete surrender by the DSS to the Treasury."
  Some people will ask, "What is new?" because that has been the de facto position, certainly for the last year and probably since the last election. We know that the Treasury vetoed the pensions Green Paper drafted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and has been giving instructions to the DSS during the past six months steadily to increase the element of means testing in our welfare system, with the sad consequences that have been described by many hon. Members today. I have no idea whether the firm reaction by Opposition Members to that extremely damaging tendency over the past weeks and months has brought about a rethink by the Government. If it has not, it is clear that the agenda has a very long way to go.
  It is obvious that the Treasury has been running the show for some time. I remember, at Treasury questions not so long ago, asking the Secretary of State, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whether there was any point in having the DSS, since the Benefits Agency was responsible for handing out the money in the country and the Treasury obviously made the policy in Whitehall. In his usual way, the right hon. Gentleman managed to avoid giving a straight answer. Now we have the Bill, and we see, de jure, written into our law, the shift of the DSS

  77
  towards becoming an executive agency of the Treasury—a shift to which we have been drawing the attention of the House and the public for some months.
  As if that were not enough, the Secretary of State has revealed this evening that he is giving the Treasury the Department's policy function as well as its administrative function. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the Secretary of State has given away at a stroke half his empire and 40 per cent. of his revenue.
  There has been a sub-plot this evening which, as in the best Shakespearean tradition, has acted to some extent as farce to heighten the high drama of the main plot. A chasm is emerging between Liberal Democrats, or what is left of them. The Liberal Democrat spokesman on pensions, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), is so keen to fawn on the Government at every opportunity that he said that the contributory principle was as good as dead and buried. Beveridge, Lloyd George and Asquith would be turning in their graves if they knew that, at the end of the century which began with the Liberal party being a great force in the land, the party's last remaining representatives were prepared to go along with a new Labour Government to bury one of the great achievements of the Liberalism of their day.
  It is much to the credit of Liberal Democrat Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who could not avoid their duty, that they subtly but decisively, as the hon. Gentleman so bravely did, rejected the subservient course adopted by the Liberal Front Bench.
  The great concern of the House this evening must not be the Secretary of State's loss of amour-propre or the destruction of the DSS, let alone the puny arguments of the modern Liberal party, but the people of this country, who have been proud of their national insurance system. They have contributed to that system and continue to do so in good faith, but they now find that the Government's agenda is to undermine it and bring to naught what has been built up as one of the great achievements of 20th-century politics in the United Kingdom.
  7.9 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. It is hard to believe from the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that this is a technical Bill, which moves around parts of the machinery of government. We have had the opportunity to range over topics from welfare reform and the contributory principle to the information technology system used in the Contributions Agency. Very little has been said, certainly by Conservative Members, about what the Bill does.
  It has been established during the debate that representatives of business and—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew to the attention of the House—the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), think that what the Bill does is right. Indeed, they think that it is overdue because of the failure—as so often—of the previous Government to act. Business does not want the transfers to be delayed, especially not on the wholly specious grounds advanced by Conservative Members.
  The shadow Chancellor supported what is proposed in the Bill in 1995 in a report to the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley
  78
  (Mr. Heseltine). I do not know whether members of the shadow Cabinet ever talk to each other about these matters. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that he was a friend of the shadow Chancellor. The shadow Chancellor supports what the Bill does, yet the Opposition are opposing it. Now that we have the benefits of joined-up government, it is a shame that we cannot have a little joined-up opposition as well.
  I commend to Opposition Members the shadow Chancellor's views on this matter. It would be well worth their while reading them. The right hon. Gentleman very clearly spelled out in the report of his deregulation task force, which was published in autumn 1995, that he was arguing for
  "closer alignment of the PAYE and National Insurance contributions systems, to be administered by a single agency".
  He went on:
  "Apart from saving public money, this would eliminate the burden of double accountability and interference for employers, and reduce the time needed for workplace taxation. This issue has been endlessly debated in Whitehall. A decision should now be made."
  Of course, he was absolutely right. Conservative Members should take note of his views. Despite his robust support, we anticipate the ludicrous sight of Opposition Members opposing this straightforward technical measure, the only effect of which is to reduce the burden on employers.
  Has something changed since the shadow Chancellor reached his eminently sensible conclusion? That is not so according to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which said in October:
  "We are pleased to note that the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency are to merge their field forces".
  The Institute of Directors, to which the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) referred, said in October:
  "We welcome the transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Revenue".
  The British Chambers of Commerce—what a long way we have come from the days when the Tory party saw itself as the voice of small business—said in October:
  "the merging of the Contributions Agency into the Inland Revenue has our full support".
  Yet the Opposition are opposing the Bill. The shadow Chancellor's excellent report, which I commend again to Opposition Members, spells out at some length the benefits of the measure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed concern about the transfer of national insurance policy. I want to make it clear that that transfer was part of the Bill from the outset. It was in schedule 3 to the Bill that was debated in the other place. Policy on benefits entitlement will of course remain with the Department of Social Security. The policy concerned is dealt with by 20 people; a very small number of people are transferring from the DSS to the Inland Revenue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) welcomed the Bill. I am particularly grateful that he was able to do so on behalf—quite rightly—of his constituents, many of whom work for the Contributions Agency in Longbenton.

  79
  The hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also welcomed the Bill, for which I am grateful. The hon. Member for Vale of York said that she could not understand the case for the Bill. I simply refer her to the case made by the shadow Chancellor, which she will find very informative.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) was absolutely right to draw attention to the measure's benefits, not just in terms of Government spending but to business and the nation as a whole. That is the basis for the change that we are making, and the basis on which I commend the Bill to the House. We shall no doubt have some interesting debates in Committee. The Bill is technical: it makes sensible changes to improve the administration of the national insurance system, which have long been argued for by many Members on both sides of the House.
  Such moves of the machinery of government are as old as bureaucracy itself. The Inland Revenue was formed in 1834 by the amalgamation of the then boards of stamps and taxes. The Treasury directed the commissioners of stamps and taxes to recall
  "the necessity of making arrangements, as expeditiously as possible, for consolidating the duties of the several offices employed under your direction with a view to effect every practicable reduction in your United Departments which may be consistent with the security of the Revenue."
  Opposition Members would no doubt have been against that.
  We, too, seek to maintain the Revenue's security in the integrity of contribution records and benefits. Rather than cutting costs for the sake of cutting costs, the transfer is driven by a determination to deliver better service. As the shadow Chancellor has pointed out, it is a sensible measure. I ask the House to support it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 322.

  Division No. 60]

  [7.17 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cran, James

  Bercow, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Cash, William

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Chope, Christopher

  Fraser, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Gale, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gibb, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Gill, Christopher

  (Rushcliffe)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  80

  Green, Damian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Horam, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Johnson Smith,

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Walter, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Wardle, Charles

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Maples, John

  Willetts, David

  Mates, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sir David Madel and

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ashton, Joe

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Austin, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Benton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Best, Harold

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  81

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Hutton, John

  (Copeland)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Denham, John

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gapes, Mike

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAllion, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  82

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Moffatt, Laura

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Snape, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oaten, Mark

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Pearson, Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pendry, Tom

  Stunell, Andrew

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pike, Peter L

  (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pope, Greg

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Timms, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Touhig, Don

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Radice, Giles

  Tyler, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Rapson, Syd

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Webb, Steve

  Rooker, Jeff

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wills, Michael

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wise, Audrey

  Sawford, Phil

  Wood, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, ETC.) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act, and

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

  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, ETC.) BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise a payment out of the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund in respect of payments made under section 42A(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.

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

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on 11th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

  (i) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Michael relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) not later than Four o'clock;

  (ii) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Dewar relating to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1999 and the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1999 not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and

  (iii) put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Dewar relating to the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Finance) Order 1999 and the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Appropriations) Order 1999 not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Food Standards
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  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 31st March 1999.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am sorry that I must detain the House for a few minutes on the motion. However, I am glad to see the Leader of the House in her place. I dictated a letter to the right hon. Lady this morning, which I shall still be sending. There are important issues relating to the motion that the House needs to pause to consider before it pushes the motion through on the nod. I refer especially to the last line of the motion, which reads:
  "That the Committee shall report by 31st March 1999."
  The House will be aware that I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which considered food safety and the Government's proposals and published a report in April 1998. I say at the outset that I am delighted that the Government are engaged in a process of pre-legislative scrutiny on this very important measure. I have no argument about that. In doing so, the Government are following a precedent that was beginning to be established by the previous Government. It is a process that the House should follow much more regularly. However, if pre-legislative scrutiny is to be effective, it must be done well. I doubt whether the time scale that is open to the Committee for consideration of the draft Bill is adequate to enable it to do its job well.
  By my calculations, if the Committee were to be convened this week for its first meeting to elect its Chairman, it would be inviting written evidence in, say, weeks two and three, taking its first oral evidence in weeks four or five—no doubt it would go at least to a sixth week—considering its report in week seven and publishing it in week eight. That is a ridiculously truncated timetable for such an important measure—one to which the Government rightly attach considerable importance.
  Compare and contrast the timetable for the Bill with the timetable for the consideration by the Select Committee on Social Security of pensions on divorce—pension splitting. That Committee took some 35 weeks to consider its proposals on an admittedly detailed and complex point of law. It had eight sessions of oral evidence, which began on 24 June and ended on 16 September. The Committee eventually published its

  85
  report on 28 October. It rightly called 33 witnesses from 11 different organisations. It called the Minister responsible and officials from the relevant Departments on two separate occasions. That is the right sort of time to give to pre-legislative scrutiny.
  It is interesting to note the Committee's last recommendation, which reads:
  "We recommend that Bills which are to be published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny by a select committee in the Session before their formal introduction should be published no later than Easter, in order to allow potential witnesses plenty of time to prepare their evidence and the select committee to complete its work before the end of the session."
  The Select Committee on Social Security made the clear assumption that a Bill should be published in draft in one Session and introduced in the following Session. We know the history of this—there is House of Lords reform—and I will not weary the House with it, but in this instance it is the Government's intention that pre-legislative scrutiny should take place over two months before Easter and that the Bill should be introduced for consideration in Standing Committee after Easter, for consideration to be completed in this parliamentary term.
  That does not seem enough time to me. I talked to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security. He told me that one problem was that witnesses came with an initial view on how the proposed legislation would work and then, sometimes after giving evidence to the Committee orally, returned with additional written evidence, on reflection, setting out what they thought the implications of the legislation would be. That seems entirely reasonable. The pre-legislative scrutiny period should be sufficiently flexible to allow that sort of dialogue.
  After all, the House is seeking to ensure with pre-legislative scrutiny that Bills are better drafted. That is the point of it. I vividly recall when I was asked for various reasons to speak at considerable length on a one-clause Bill. I spoke for a morning and a half in Standing Committee and found that that legislation was significantly improved. It is right that the House should pay more attention to the way in which legislation is drafted. It is right also that the Government should assume pre-legislative scrutiny, and I welcome that. However, it is not right to confine that scrutiny to two months.
  The Government, in their response to the Select Committee on Social Security, congratulated it on the detailed way in which it had considered legislation. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who has only recently today spoken from the Dispatch Box, said:
  "We very much welcome the Committee's constructive response. You deserve great credit for your thorough examination of the draft legislation. You have been instrumental in taking forward the proposals of the Modernisation Committee to improve Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed legislation."
  Noticeably, in their reply to the Select Committee, the Government, for perfectly understandable reasons, ducked any comment on the specific recommendation about the timetable for pre-legislative scrutiny. They said that it was a matter for the Modernisation Committee. I believe that they are right. It is also a matter for the whole House.
  We should welcome the Government's intentions with regard to pre-legislative scrutiny, but we should say that, if this process is not to be discredited very early in its
  86
  parliamentary history, it must be done well. Given the many constraints on Members' time and the need to give witnesses outside this place a decent amount of time to prepare for what they regard as a very important occasion—it concerns their lives as representatives of organisations with an interest in food safety—I do not believe that the timetable provides enough time.
  As Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I can say that we took six or seven months to produce a report on food safety. I still think that, if anything, the report tended to be superficial. I would have liked to examine many issues in greater depth as part of the report. I appreciate that the issue is now more focused because we are dealing with the Bill itself, not the whole gamut of food safety. I still think, however, that a scant eight weeks is not enough. I urge the Government to reconsider whether this is the right way to proceed with the Bill; and whether it will enhance the dignity of the process of pre-legislative scrutiny.
  7.36 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I shall not take up the time of the House because we are dealing with a procedural motion to appoint a Committee. I understand from the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that he does not oppose the setting up of the Committee. Indeed, he welcomes it. He does not oppose the use of the procedure. He welcomes that, too, and that is very helpful. However, he thinks that we should have provided for more time.
  I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view and that of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who objected to the motion in the first place last week—in the past, the right hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished advocate of modernisation of the sort that we are discussing, so I was a little sorry as well as surprised to see him taking such action—that we should use the procedure of pre-legislative scrutiny more regularly, and the Government would wish that. However, that presumes that everyone wants to use the procedure for the purpose for which it is intended.
  I repeat that this is a motion to set up a Committee and to enable some scrutiny. The purpose of the timetable, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire may have observed, is to tie up with the deadline for the closure of the public consultation process, which finished on 24 March. That is why the Committee is asked to report on 31 March.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to have a much longer period of scrutiny and to allow for far more witnesses to give evidence, as if there were great concern outside this place. If there were, that would be a matter of great importance. As I understand it, however, no one in the food industry has made any complaint about the timetable that the Government are pursuing. Indeed, as recently as this week, the National Farmers Union and food industry representatives have indicated that they are content with the procedure.
  Mr. Luff: If I understand the right hon. Lady correctly, she is saying that written evidence to the Government has to be in by the end of March but written evidence to the Select Committee will have to be in by the end of February, or even earlier. There could be considerable

  87
  inconsistencies between the evidence received by the Select Committee in writing and that which the Government receive in writing at the end of their consultation period.
  Mrs. Beckett: I find that hard to believe, especially as presumably those whose evidence the hon. Gentleman would most wish to hear are not expressing concern about this issue or about the timetable. That brings me to the main point which I think arises on this use of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure. It is that the Government might well not have tied time so tightly to the end of the general consultation had it not been for the fact that we are anxious to legislate on this matter this Session, believing it to be very much in the public interest and a matter of public safety. I wonder—the question arises if this issue is to detain us at any length—whether this is a matter of holding up the Bill, which as we all know some Members oppose.
  Mr. Luff: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Not for a moment. I shall finish the point that I am making.
  The indication given by the right hon. Member for East Devon on a point of order, when he obstructed the motion at the end of last week, was precisely that he opposed the subject matter of the Bill and the accompanying measures.
  The Government are anxious that the Bill should not be held up. The question is ultimately whether the House wants the Bill. There will, of course, be ample opportunity to debate the proposals and the Bill when it finally comes before the House. I repeat: the issue now is whether we set up such a Committee, and whether it considers the matter in the way that the motion allows.
  The procedure has been welcomed in all parts of the House and we are anxious that it should be used. I suggest that we proceed to use it.
  Question put and agreed to
  Ordered,
  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 31st March 1999.

  Residential Care (Birmingham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  7.40 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the anxieties felt by residents of Goodrest elderly persons home in my constituency, their families and residents of other homes that Birmingham social services committee proposes to close or privatise.
  I shall begin on a positive note. Birmingham city council has an excellent scheme for the development of extra care sheltered housing for elderly people. Under such schemes, individual residents have their own flat and their own front door, but where extra care is needed, it can be tailored to the specific needs of the individual and can change when the person's needs change, as he or she becomes more frail.
  There is no argument in Birmingham about the development of the schemes. There are already 11 schemes providing 426 flats. I fully support those schemes, as the first two began when I was chair of housing in the mid-1980s, so I claim to be responsible for the development of the schemes. They are excellent, and Birmingham has been praised for them. There are various new developments on stream, and it is hoped that by the millennium or soon afterwards there will be 26 schemes running, providing a total of 1,030 flats.
  By their nature, those are mixed developments. Although there are already several hundred such flats, I understand from the social services department that only 26 places have so far been allocated to those assessed as being in need of residential care. The provision is thus good for the future, but it is not particularly relevant to existing residents of elderly persons homes.
  Over the years Birmingham city council has closed a number of homes, many of them in unsuitable locations. One was at Highbury hall, the former home of the Chamberlains. That building is now much better developed as a conference centre. It was right for the council to close that home. Over the years, non-purpose-built homes that were not entirely satisfactory have been closed.
  I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) would be present for the debate, but unfortunately he has been held up in his constituency, which includes the Longbridge area. I am sure that hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Minister understand that he would have liked to participate and is equally concerned about the proposals.
  Birmingham city council has 35 residential homes for elderly people. Only 14 of the homes so far have been refurbished to bring them up to the standards rightly demanded of the private sector. A further four homes already meet registration standards, although they are in need of refurbishment. That leaves 17 homes that need considerable upgrading. The social services department reckons that it needs to spend £19 million to bring them up to scratch. Local residents have queried that figure, but even if it were halved, it would be a substantial sum.
  The social services department is in a difficult position. Central Government, who control the capital spending of local authorities, have not allocated to it that level of

  89
  resource. In recent years, the problem has got worse. Until 1995–96, the previous Government allocated about £2.5 million for social services capital schemes. Since then, the sum has steadily decreased. In the forthcoming year, the allocation is a mere £838,000. I know that the leader of the council has made representations to the Secretary of State and expressed her concerns.
  In the forthcoming financial year, only £100,000 will be available for new schemes—the rest of the money is already committed to existing schemes. The council has had to devise means to deal with the problem, which unfortunately involves closing several homes. It is proposed to retain and refurbish only four of the homes. The rest are to be sold to the private sector, to be privatised, or—as in the case of Goodrest elderly persons home—are to be demolished, and the site used for extra care sheltered housing.
  The council will be left with eight homes for elderly people. The council says that it has a role to play in providing residential care, especially for those suffering from dementia. As hon. Members know, there is a growing elderly population, many of whom will unfortunately suffer from dementia.
  In a report produced last year, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians stated that the figure of 700,000 elderly people currently suffering from dementia is set to rise to about 1 million in 30 years. The report called for a national framework of provision. It pointed out that the policy of contracting out institutional long-term care to the independent sector was imposed by the previous Government in order to transfer costs from the health budget to the means-tested social services budget. The report further stated that there is no evidence that the care provided is comparable in quality, safety and cost to that which can be provided by statutory services.
  The report went on to deal with problems of abuse of elderly people in residential establishments. It identified abuse as a matter of growing concern and pointed to various risk factors—poor working conditions for staff, inadequate numbers of staff, inadequate supervision and training of staff, and inappropriate mixes of residents with different care needs.
  I do not want to cast doubt on much of the excellent provision in the private sector. In Birmingham, as in other areas, the majority of residential care is provided by the private sector, but there are considerable concerns about the quality of provision in some homes.
  In respect of these risk factors, there is grave concern about the rates that those homes are either prepared or able to pay their staff. I emphasise the words "able to pay", because I have been approached by proprietors of excellent private homes in my constituency who are extremely concerned about the rate of pay for each resident that they receive from the social services department, which has continued to pressurise them to reduce costs. The proprietors say that—because of the growing dependency of many elderly people who are discharged, often from hospital, into their care—they are not able to provide for their needs with the weekly allocation given to them by the social services department.
  That means that many of those homes—some because they have no choice and others because they wish to profiteer—are paying appalling rates and using staff who have little training and are not committed to the work.
  90
  Looking after elderly people in residential care settings is a difficult job that requires dedication and a great deal of skill, whether or not the elderly people are frail or suffering from dementia.
  This morning, I went to my local jobcentre to look at the vacancies for care assistants in private homes. The rate of pay varied from £3.10 an hour to £4.15 an hour for those trained to national vocational qualification standards and prepared to work shifts. One home was offering £3.60 an hour to experienced workers, including working nights and weekends. It does not require any stretch of the imagination to understand that those rates of pay are simply an insult to the work that is required to look after our elderly people.
  Birmingham social services department pays its staff £4.35 an hour, which is not exactly rich pickings. It pays slightly higher rates for weekend and evening work and double time for night shifts. I think that those workers deserve that level of pay, and probably more. That level of pay, and more, ought to be provided for those who look after elderly people in our residential homes.
  The residents of Goodrest home are extremely concerned about the closures. Occupancy in the homes that are run by Birmingham social services department is slightly under 100 per cent., because a number of places are reserved for respite care. Some elderly people, from time to time, need to go into respite care to give their carers a break or if they are ill and need residential care. Those places will also be put at risk by the closures, but—because there is no longer any slack in the system following previous closures, including the closure of one of the other elderly care homes in my constituency a couple of years ago, again to widespread concern among the residents and the local community—there is no slack in the system and there are next to no places available in other council-run homes. Even if people wanted to take up such places—which they do not, because they want to stay in their homes and they value the care that they receive—that choice would not be available to them.
  Residents and their relatives are extremely concerned about their future. A meeting was organised last November by the local councilors—in Birmingham we have a system of ward sub-committees—and held at the home concerned in my constituency. Most of the residents attended, as did their relatives and members of the public. A vote was taken and it was unanimously decided that people wanted to stay in their home. They valued the quality of the care and feared what the alternatives might be.
  It was made clear when the vote was taken that people would have to move out if refurbishment took place, but they would be able to move back later and maintain contact with friends and family during that process. Even though there would be disruption, there was an overwhelming desire to stay in the Goodrest home. From letters that I have received from relatives of my constituents in other homes, I know that such desire is felt elsewhere.
  During the discussion, the assistant director of social services was asked what provision could be made for people if the closure went ahead. The assistant director made clear—this is in the minutes of the ward sub-committee meeting—that it
  "was not possible to give any guarantees about the standard of care to be provided to residents in the future".

  91
  He added that
  "the Department would be doing its utmost to seek to achieve the best possible care provision available at the time",
  although that was likely to be in the private sector. There was no guarantee about the quality of care.
  It is known that those homes are likely to employ staff on the rates of pay that I have mentioned, and there will probably be a lower ratio of staff to residents, so it is understandable that people fear for the future. They have been given no guarantees. Even if they had been, they would have wanted to stay in their home.
  There is demand for these places in Birmingham, which is shown by the fact that the homes are full, and we will have a growing elderly population. Over time, provision in extra care sheltered housing will be available for the frail elderly, but there will be growing demand for residential accommodation for elderly people suffering from dementia and other symptoms of confusion.
  The local residents and the carers have set about campaigning to keep their homes open. I pay tribute to the dedication of those local people and the relatives of residents living in Goodrest. The residents are not able to campaign, but their relatives are doing an excellent job on their behalf. They are collecting petitions and this Saturday was one of many on which they have spent hours in the cold and the wet collecting signatures to get public support for keeping their homes open. That is happening across the city, and they will be lobbying the social services committee when it meets next week to take decisions.
  The consultation has shown that there is demand for homes that are run by the social services department. We know that most of those homes are already in the private sector. It is important, not only for the care of the residents, but for the well-being of all elderly people, to retain a proportion of such care in the public sector. That sets standards and acts as a benchmark for other provision. It also gives support to inspection regimes, which, I know, are having their hands tied.
  Issues have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—I have taken them up with the social services inspectorate in Birmingham—in respect of monitoring of the administration of medication to residents. It is clear that the monitoring of these private homes is unsatisfactory in that regard. A gun is being held to the inspectors' heads. They cannot close these homes because there is no alternative provision. That is another reason why we should maintain places in the public sector.
  The local authority cannot raise the capital because of Government restrictions on capital spending. That is nonsensical. We are encouraging private provision, but to make places available the private sector is required to raise capital. It is more expensive for the private sector to raise finance than for the local authority to do so.
  In the long run, it is economic nonsense to close these homes. They provide an excellent quality of care, and residents, their families and the people of Birmingham want them kept open. They are looking to their local councillors, local MPs and the Government to get together to ensure that Goodrest and other homes for the elderly in Birmingham stay open. I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say about meeting their needs.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I apologise for my late arrival in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said, I was unfortunately detained by what could not honestly be described as a little local difficulty at Longbridge—a major crisis facing the whole of the midlands. I hope that the House will forgive me for my late arrival.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and on her description of the issues facing elderly persons homes in Birmingham. I should like to make a few comments, which will be fairly parochial, as one of the homes affected is in my constituency. I shall illustrate some of the general problems facing elderly persons homes in Birmingham and some of the issues at stake.
  The city council and the social services committee in Birmingham in particular face formidable problems. Over the years, they have attempted to establish an imaginative policy for the care of the elderly, in consultation with the health authority and others, under the "new homes for old" strategy. In principle, that strategy is valuable, because it emphasises partnership and the need for quality and choice in the care of the elderly. It emphasises the right of people, as they reach old age, to have the quality of care where they need it and the choice of care in all possible situations.
  Frankley in Northfield became part of Birmingham in 1995: it was formerly part of Bromsgrove. Lyttleton house is an elderly persons home in Frankley which has provided a valuable community resource, and has been well regarded by people who live in the area. It is one of the homes that did not meet registration standards under the social services review. In the early part of last year, it was recommended for closure. The issues surrounding that home are much the same as those described by my hon. Friend for other homes, especially the Goodrest home in her constituency.
  The "new homes for old" strategy adopted by Birmingham city council is about providing diversity in choice for elderly people in the city. However, I have been worried about the way in which the debate has gone in the past year in Birmingham. Under the most recent review of elderly persons homes, the selection of which homes should change their character, which should be recommended for closure, which should be offered other options and which should be refurbished seems to be linked to the current financial situation of the homes and the refurbishment costs estimated by the city council, rather than to the clear estimate of needs in the community and how those needs relate to the needs of communities elsewhere.
  The city council and the social services committee have a genuine desire to consult local people about their proposals. Unfortunately, that genuine desire to consult has not always been matched by action on the ground. Questions have often been asked by local residents. In my area, an action group was formed to campaign for Lyttleton house, and the social services department has been asked about the plan for closure. Although answers were given, sadly they led to more questions about the cost of refurbishment, occupancy levels and so on. In Birmingham, we need a little more clarity about the review, and about how the current provision of elderly persons homes fits into that review.

  93
  The "new homes for old" strategy is sound. The responses to consultations have not related to that strategy. The committee's response to the comments on Lyttleton house, which included a 10,000-name petition of local people who want to save it, has been to suggest that, rather than closure, perhaps it could be considered for sale as a going concern. There may be arguments for that, but it prompted another round of consultation. Local people did not know whether they were coming or going. They were told that the home in which their relatives lived and which they valued was earmarked for closure. They were consulted, they gave their views and they were then asked whether, rather than closure, they wanted it to be sold off as a going concern.
  The meetings of local people that I attended did not have confidence that their comments would have an impact on the decision-making process. I say that not to criticise or to have a go at the social services committee, because it is faced with a difficult situation in a difficult financial climate, and there are various competing pressures on it. But the difficulties faced by the social services committee are nothing compared with the difficulties faced by the residents of those homes and their relatives. They are told about the cost of refurbishment and that the need in their area is not easily equatable with the need elsewhere, but they are the ones that have to make decisions and advise their relatives for whom places such as Lyttleton house and Goodrest are their homes.
  On 17 February, the social services committee in Birmingham will again meet to consider the future of elderly persons homes. I do not underestimate the difficulties that it faces, but I want to use the opportunity of this debate to suggest to the committee that it may be worth while pausing a little longer and thinking in a more joined-up way about the future of those homes.
  For the homes that are threatened with closure, the solutions may not be limited to the straight choice of closure or sale to a purchaser as a going concern. We should think a little more flexibly and creatively about the way in which we provide elderly care in Birmingham. There should be more discussions with the health authority and other partners to see how the principles of the "new homes for old" strategy can be taken forward in practice. I want that imaginative strategy to succeed in Birmingham, but it will work only if its principles are reflected in the practice of the department on the ground. When the social services committee meets, I hope that it will consider proceeding along those lines.
  I echo the point made by my hon. Friend. The local authority's ability to act is often circumscribed by the financial climate. Perhaps greater flexibility in that financial climate would enable it to be more creative, which is what we all want.
  8.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on securing time for tonight's important debate; she clearly feels strongly about the issues. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on his thoughtful comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak raised a number of issues relating to the provision of residential care in Birmingham. In particular, she discussed
  94
  arrangements for the local authority's so-called part III homes, standards of care, and roles for the public and private sectors as providers.
  In Birmingham, as elsewhere, residential care is an integral part of community care. Before I deal with the specific issues raised by both my hon. Friends, it may be helpful if I say a word about the wider context in which the debate should be seen. As I am sure my hon. Friends are aware, the aim of community care is to provide the support that frail or vulnerable people need if they are to live in their own homes or in homely settings, retaining the independence, dignity and quality of life that come from being a part of the community. That means that local authorities must provide a balanced range of services that are accessible and adapted to meet the needs of individual service users.
  We take no ideological view of who the provider should be. We see no reason why good-quality, cost-effective services cannot be given by the public sector, the private sector and voluntary providers. We recognise the important contribution that each must make. The important issue is not that of who provides a service, but that the service itself is of high quality, is responsive to users' needs and wishes, and delivers the best possible value for money. That means that local authorities must be rigorous and skilled purchasers of services from independent providers, and equally rigorous and skilled managers of their in-house services. In both cases, authorities must be committed to putting users' needs first, delivering top-quality services and ensuring that resources go as far as possible.
  The local authority has the lead in planning and commissioning important services. The role of Government is to provide a legal as well as a financial framework within which those important services can be delivered. Let me say a little more about that wider framework, and about what we as a Government are doing to promote quality and value. The key elements include promoting partnership working—effective arrangements between agencies working locally, and the development of national standards and objectives for social services. We are doing that now, for the first time. We also want to encourage more effective commissioning, and we are providing the resources that authorities need to commission and deliver services effectively.
  As I am sure my hon. Friends will know, over the next three years £3 billion of additional revenue will be devoted to social services. Let me mention some of the important initiatives with which we are taking forward our agenda. We are determined to improve partnership working between social services and the national health service, because people's needs do not recognise organisational boundaries. In the case of older people particularly, they are often complex: they change, both in the short term and over a longer period. Following a period in hospital, people may need additional support—from the community health service, for instance—if they are to return home; or they may need residential care places if discharge is not to be delayed, and if unnecessary readmission is not to be caused. We need to consider residential care provision within the broader context of community care services, mapping out the key links with other agencies.
  When residential care is planned, what is important is effective joined-up thinking in the wider community care and health context. The interdependence of health and

  95
  social care makes it essential for the provider agencies to collaborate effectively in service planning, commissioning, assessment and delivery—and, not least, in funding.
  Section 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977 has long been a key funding mechanism enabling health authorities to support the work of social services. Not least, that includes supporting residential and nursing home placements—for example, through the provision of "dowries" and similar payments in respect of people transferring from long-stay hospitals, or through the support of innovative cross-agency services.
  I am sure that both my hon. Friends will know that, in the Health Bill that we published recently, we outlined the way in which we intend to legislate in order to ensure that more effective working between social services and the national health service becomes the norm. First, we are determined to remove whatever legal obstacles might obstruct effective working between the NHS and social services. Secondly, in our executive letter entitled "Better Services for Vulnerable People", we set out the medium-term agenda for people with continuing health and social care needs. Further guidance on the better services initiative was issued in August by the NHS executive and the Department's social care regions.
  The circular asked local and health authorities to proceed in three important areas. First, there were the joint investment plans that will provide a national framework for multidisciplinary assessments of older people in acute and community health settings, jointly with social services, and the development of a range of recuperation and rehabilitation services for older people. Joint investment plans will constitute a distillation of the health improvement plan and community care planning information. They bring together in a single document the joint information needed for health and social services to deliver on their respective responsibilities. The recent guidance requires health and local authorities to have joint investment plans in place by April this year, as a minimum, for older people, including those with mental health problems.
  Multidisciplinary assessments, by health and social services, have always been a joint responsibility within community care. More effective multidisciplinary assessment means better co-ordination of care services. In the community, it may avoid unnecessary hospital admission and allow older people to remain in their own homes for far longer; in the hospital setting, good multidisciplinary assessments may avoid an unnecessary admission subsequent to institutional care. Similarly, we hope that the development of recuperation and rehabilitation services will enable people to return to the community sooner, and to remain in their homes for longer.
  Thirdly—perhaps this is our most important proposal—we intend to modernise social services. This is a key theme in the recent social services White Paper, which provides a context in which services such as residential care must be seen and developed. We are talking about maximising independence rather than supporting dependency, with the new emphasis that we intend to place on rehabilitation, recuperation and prevention services.
  96
  The White Paper, however, does not stand alone. It is part of the Government's overall strategy to improve health and social services. Together with the document "The new NHS" and the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", the social services White Paper provides a foundation for the future of health and social care.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak raised the issue of standards of care and inspection in care homes. That is a key issue, and, indeed, a key element of the White Paper. Local authority-provided residential care homes are not currently required to be registered in the same way as independent homes, but local authorities are required to inspect their homes, and to apply the same standards to private and public provision. When local authority homes are below standard, we expect authorities to take appropriate action to bring them up to scratch. It is only right for vulnerable people in local authority homes to expect the standards that authorities apply to the independent sector.
  There are many problems with the current regulatory system for social services, and we want to put those problems right. We are committed to reforming regulatory arrangements for social services, and our proposals have been set out clearly in the White Paper. We want to create independent regulatory bodies, which will be called the commissions for care standards and which will be responsible for regulating all residential care homes, including local authority homes as well as nursing homes, children's homes and other care services such as domiciliary care agencies.
  We are also committed—my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak may be interested in this—to the development of national regulatory standards that can be applied to all care homes. As a first step in the development of national standards, we commissioned the Centre for Policy on Aging to advise us on standards for older people in residential care. The CPA recently submitted its report to the Government, and we intend to publish the standards for consultation shortly. I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to set standards that will consider the quality of care that is needed for vulnerable people.
  My hon. Friend spoke at length about the particular circumstances of social services in Birmingham. As I am sure she will be the first to acknowledge, spending priorities vary from area to area. As I have said, of the authorities locally, local authorities are best placed to assess those priorities. I have described several ways in which we are supporting them in delivering quality, cost-effective services. Clearly, though, a crucial factor in the equation is money. Commissioning services means committing resources. Committing them wisely means planning ahead. We are aware of the strains on social service budgets, and we have demonstrated our intention to ensure that social services receive priority among the many services that receive Government support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak will be aware that the outcome of the comprehensive spending review provides significant increases in resources for local authority social services—as I have said, almost £3 billion extra over the next three years and an additional £500 million in the current financial year. The increased resources mean that social services departments will be able to plan ahead, knowing that there will be increased

  97
  funding in each of the next three years. They will have the resources that they need to provide effective and integrated services to vulnerable people in society.
  I should like to return to the specific question of residential care homes and, in particular, the arrangements that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak has described affecting Birmingham. As I have said, resources nationally for social services are being increased by 6.1 per cent. next year. That is significantly above inflation. We are targeting a large proportion of that increase at improving the services for older people through better planning and delivery of services across the interface between the health service and social services through improved rehabilitation services.
  Older people make an enormous contribution to national life. The Government are determined to ensure that their wishes and needs are taken seriously. We also intend to ensure that older people are valued and can play their full part in society.
  As I have mentioned, the recent White Paper set out what the Government propose to do to modernise social services. People generally want to live in their own home if they can, and the Government intend to put greater independence at the heart of social services for adults. However, we recognise that, for some people, care in a residential setting will be inevitable and appropriate.
  A recent survey by Birmingham social services showed that some people in residential homes were inappropriately placed and capable of managing their lives better at home. It was believed that, given improved rehabilitation services, many of those people would not need to go into residential homes in the first place. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak would want to ensure, if possible, that that happened.
  Birmingham health authority is developing a proposal whereby social services would pay a premium for short-term stays in residential homes if they offered rehabilitation services that enabled the person to return to their home eventually. Birmingham health authority is also running a pilot along those lines for people with specific health needs.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: All that my hon. Friend has explained on the Government's strategy is commendable, as are the additional revenue resources, but it has been made clear that the residents of the homes that are to be closed will not be offered a place in their own home. Many have left their homes. They have no home. The extra care sheltered housing is not on offer to them. The issue is not about the revenue cost—the day-to-day cost of running the home—but about the cost of the refurbishment and capital expenditure. That is the important issue. I would be grateful if he would say a few words about that.
  Mr. Hutton: I do intend to say a few words about that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are at one on the general direction that we want to take, which is to promote wherever possible independence and independent living. She was anxious—I think that it was her main concern—about the quality of care that her constituents could face in the private sector. She expressed anxiety that there would be no guarantee that they would receive a comparable quality of service. I accept that one of the Government's responsibilities is to take action to set standards and to ensure that they are sufficiently high. We take that responsibility seriously.
  98
  That is why we have commissioned the work from the Centre for Policy on Aging to help us to set a proper standard that we can apply across the spectrum, but we intend—the Government have made it clear; I hope that I have done so tonight—to ensure that, in developing those new national standards, we consult as effectively as possible with all providers, in both the public sector and the private sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak referred to capital. She may be interested to know that I had some correspondence with the leader of Birmingham city council about the issue. Figures from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have shown that, from 1995–96 to 1999–2000, Birmingham has had approximately £230 million made available to it from central Government for capital programmes, and between £6 million and £10 million in usable receipts.
  We have told Birmingham city council that we are anxious to encourage local authorities to make full use of the private finance initiative. We are keen for authorities to seek partnerships with the private or voluntary sector because, in many cases, as my hon. Friend may be aware, such partnerships can offer very good value for money in the provision of services and capital investment.
  My Department has PFI credits available for the current financial year. If Birmingham city council is interested in exploring that option with us, we would be interested in hearing from it.
  Dr. Jones: That is an interesting proposal, but I understand that that has been explored. In relation to the total capital programme, obviously Birmingham is a big city and it has a big capital programme, but the fact remains that the allocation that the Government have earmarked for social services has declined and is very small.
  Mr. Hutton: I would hate to have an argument with my hon. Friend about the level of social services expenditure. I am sure that she would acknowledge that over £500 million of additional money has been put into social services in England, Wales and Scotland this year. That is a significant increase. The local government financial settlement for Birmingham shows that, overall, resources increased by 4 per cent. this year, which is above inflation.
  We could go on arguing around those points. I do not think that it would be fruitful to do so, but, as I have said to the leader of Birmingham city council, we are interested in exploring with the council any opportunities for private finance initiatives. We still look forward to hearing any confirmation from the council that it wants to explore that with us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak was right to say that the social services department has been considering the future of all of its own residential care homes for older people. Some homes have been sold and some have been refurbished. The overall strategy included upgrading some of the homes to meet registration standards, and receipts from the homes that have been sold contributed significantly to that upgrading. The strategy also includes providing for a range of alternative care provision, to residential care in which people can still have their own front door and receive the degree of care and support related to their needs.

  99
  My hon. Friends the Members for Selly Oak and for Northfield both mentioned the development of extra care sheltered housing, which now has 11 schemes in operation, with a further three new build schemes planned for 1998–99. As 12 more schemes are in the pipeline, there will be a total of 1,030 flats by 2001.
  The strategy employed by the social services department has been in line with that of many other local authorities that have divested themselves of in-house residential provision for older people. The social services committee has approved the strategy, and there has been a formal process of consultation with all stakeholders before any decisions have been taken on the future of each home.
  I understand that arrangements for all but eight of the authority's 35 homes have now been satisfactorily resolved. The social services department is currently out to consultation on the final eight homes, and findings and any final proposals will be reported to the social services committee for a decision, on 17 February. Any homes that are sold to the independent sector will be subject to the process of registration and inspection that—I should like to ensure my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak—will ensure the quality and standard of care available.
  100
  Birmingham is not alone in reviewing its provision of residential care. Local authorities across Britain have been examining ways of improving services, to put together imaginative and innovative care packages for the benefit of care service users and their families. Whatever decisions an individual authority makes when considering changes to the extent of their provision of residential care, the welfare and wishes of residents and staff of the residential care homes concerned must be taken fully into account.
  Regional offices of the Social Care Group monitor developments of that nature and keep Ministers fully informed. However, as I am sure that both of my hon. Friends will accept, it is essentially a matter for the local authority concerned to decide how best to meet the need for social services, including residential care, in their own area.
  Taken together, the measures that I have outlined will help to improve both the quality and the delivery of social services across Britain. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have first-class social services that provide flexible user-centred care to those who need it. I assure both my hon. Friends that that applies as much in Birmingham as it does anywhere else in Britain. I assure them also that I shall continue to take a close interest in the issues that both of them have raised in this debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the road schemes which are proceeding following the outcome of the national Roads Review and (b) those roads which are to be considered by regional planning conferences which could have an effect on areas of outstanding natural beauty or National Parks, detailing for each the designation affected. [67024]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Environmental concerns were a major consideration of the assessment of schemes during the Roads Review. The Road Programme inherited from the previous Government contained 21 schemes which would affect National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following lists show the schemes which are to proceed as part of the Targeted Programme of Improvements following the national Roads Review which will impact on specific National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  Scheme Name

  National Park or AONB

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Improvement

  North Wessex Downs AONB

  A41 Aston Clinton Bp

  Chilterns AONB

  A2 Bean-Cobham Widening Phase 2

  Kent Downs AONB

  A21 Lamberhurst Bp

  High Weald AONB

  The following scheme, which was not sufficiently advanced to be considered for the Targeted Programme of Improvements, will be progressed through its preparatory stages so that if, after full appraisal and statutory procedures, it is eventually endorsed, it can be taken forward without delay.

  Scheme Name

  National Park or AONB

  A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwhistle Bp

  Peak District NP

  In addition, a number of schemes are to considered by Regional Planning Conferences in the context of the programme of wider multi-modal studies announced recently. These studies cover in some cases very wide areas of the country. Solutions to these studies will by no means necessarily be road based and will rarely be solely road schemes. We therefore cannot list AONBs or National Parks within these areas in the same definitive way as for identified road proposals. Environmental impact is an important consideration in our new approach to appraisals and its assessment will be integral to the
  2
  study process. Any consequences for AONBs and National Parks of solutions coming out of the studies would be explicitly identified at that point.

  Night Flights (Heathrow)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many night flights(a) landing and (b) taking off from Heathrow carried (i) passengers and (ii) airfreight in each of the last five years. [68576]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total runway movements in the night quota period (11.30 pm and 6 am) each season for the last five years are set out.

  Season

  Arrivals

  Departures

  Total runway movements 1

  Winter 1993–94

  2—

  2—

  2,589

  Summer 1994

  2—

  2—

  3,204

  Winter 1994–95

  2—

  2—

  2,939

  Summer 1995

  2—

  2—

  3,266

  Winter 1995–96

  2—

  2—

  3,059

  Summer 1996

  2,527

  313

  2,840

  Winter 1996–97

  2,567

  255

  2,822

  Summer 1997

  2,722

  285

  3,007

  Winter 1997–98

  2,542

  224

  2,766

  Summer 1998

  2,765

  334

  3,099

  1 Total runway movements include all movements counted against the night movements limit and noise quota, movements by exempt types of aircraft and movements given dispensations.

  2 The split between arrivals and departures is not readily available due to the basis on which records have been retained.

  Full details of the split between passenger and all-cargo movements for each season are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. On the basis of available data, about 8 per cent. of movements in winter 1993–94, and 5 per cent. in summer 1995 were all-cargo flights including mail with similar amounts in intervening seasons (ie slightly more in winter than in summer). In summer 1998 there were 96 such movements, 3 per cent. of the total. A significant amount of cargo is carried in the holds of passenger aircraft.

  Vehicle Registration Documents
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Council of Ministers has resolved to apply the Committee Directive on the Registration Documents for Vehicles (EC 65/98) five years after the entry into force of that Directive. [68966]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The five year implementation period will provide Member States with sufficient time to introduce the new harmonised system for vehicle registration documents. Member States are free to introduce the new documentation before then if they wish to do so.

  Council Properties (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Wandsworth Borough Council on its policy of selling council properties in certain areas of the borough. [69070]
  3
  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had no such discussions. However, officials of the Government Office for London regularly discuss with Borough officials many aspects of the Borough's housing strategy and of its performance as a housing authority as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme allocation process. Sales of council properties are one aspect of those discussions.

  Environmentally Friendly Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with his European Union colleagues on the development of environmentally friendly vehicles by European vehicle producers. [69093]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Significant developments are taking place in Europe on the promotion of environmentally friendly vehicles by European vehicle producers. A number of directives were agreed in 1998, setting future emission standards for cars, vans and vehicles with heavy-duty diesel engines. Last year a voluntary agreement was concluded between the EC and European motor manufacturers, to reduce by 25 per cent. the CO2 emissions from new cars by 2008. When the UK's Cleaner Vehicles Task Force publishes its first report in the coming months, we will wish to discuss its contents with colleagues in Europe.

  I and my Ministerial colleagues keep in close contact with our European counterparts on these matters. During January my right hon. Friends the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Transport had liaison meetings with the respective Ministers of the new German Government.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the German Government on the United Kingdom's rules relating to the import and export of spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement; [69157]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the import and export of spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement; [69156]

  (3) if imports of spent nuclear fuel from Germany primarily to alleviate the shortage of on-site waste storage capacity at German nuclear facilities contravene Government policy; and if he will seek advice on this matter from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [69159]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's policy is that spent nuclear fuel may be imported into the UK provided that the prime purpose is the recovery of reusable material.

  BNFL provides nuclear fuel reprocessing services on a fully commercial basis. Since 1976 all reprocessing contracts have contained the option for the return of waste arising from reprocessing to the customer country. The Government have made it clear that this option should be exercised, and all wastes returned.

  It has also been made clear to the German Government that the UK would not be willing to offer long-term storage in the UK for spent nuclear fuel that will not be
  4
  reprocessed. It follows that, should existing reprocessing contracts be cancelled at any time, German material held in the UK at that time would have to be returned.

  Peat Extraction
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to protect internationally important lowland raised peatlands from damage caused by commercial peat extraction for horticultural and gardening use; and if he will make a statement. [69149]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has reconvened its Working Group on Peat Extraction to consider whether existing policies and guidance on peat extraction are still appropriate.

  The Group is looking at a range of issues surrounding peat extraction, including the need for safeguarding peat bogs of national and international importance, and the development and marketing of peat alternatives.

  A report of the Group's discussions, including recommendations for action, is in preparation. This will assist me and other Ministerial colleagues to decide what further action is necessary.

  In the meantime, we have asked English Nature for advice on the position at Wedholme Flow and Thorne and Hatfield Moors on the best present scientific assessment as to the effects of commercial peat extraction on the areas of international importance.

  Temporary Airside Passes
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what restrictions are imposed by his departmental regulations on the taking airside of(a) cameras and (b) mobile phones by holders of temporary airside passes at British airports; [69072]

  (2) what security screening requirements are imposed by his departmental regulations on holders of temporary airside passes before they can go airside at British airports; [69057]

  (3) what is the maximum length of time laid down in his departmental regulations for which a temporary airside pass can be issued at a British airport; [69073]

  (4) what the rules are under his departmental regulations on checking of references before the issue of a temporary airside pass at British airports; [69056]

  (5) how many breaches of his departmental regulations covering the issue of temporary airside passes at British airports were confirmed during (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [69058]

  Dr. Reid
  References are required only for the issue of a permanent pass. Temporary passes are issued on the basis of proof of identity, but such passholders must be escorted at all times. They are normally issued for up to three days, although a limited number of "special" passes are issued for temporary access up to 31 days when this is justified. Temporary pass holders are required to undergo the same screening process as all permanent staff and passengers before entry to the Restricted Zone of an airport. There are no Departmental Regulations restricting
  5
  holders of temporary airside passes from taking cameras and mobile telephones airside. However, all items taken airside are searched and particular attention is given to electrical and electronic equipment, such as cameras and mobile telephones.

  There have been no breaches of the Department's Regulations on the issuing of airside passes at British airports in 1997 or 1998.

  Following an article in a newspaper on 20 January, Ministers ordered an immediate inquiry into how a journalist had obtained a temporary pass to Heathrow airport by posing as a cleaner; also that an urgent reappraisal of the regulations governing the issue of passes at UK airports be carried out.

  At the same time, all the temporary passes issued to the company concerned were withdrawn, with no new ones to be issued until the Department's inspectors were satisfied that the necessary procedures were being carried out. These actions are currently being pursued, but it is too early to comment further.

  New Deal (Communities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing the New Deal for Communities since its launch. [69414]

  Mr. Meale
  Communities, local groups and public bodies in the 17 local authority districts eligible to run pathfinders have brought forward proposals for neighbourhoods they consider would benefit from the New Deal for Communities. On the basis of those proposals, we expect to announce shortly which partnerships we will support, as they develop a detailed long term strategy for change.

  M6 Congestion
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the study group set up by his Department to examine ways of reducing traffic congestion on the M6 motorway between junctions 6 and 10; and what actions he proposes to take as a result. [69549]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have recently finished a consultation exercise with regional planning bodies on the programme of twenty six studies proposed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", and we will make an announcement on the final programme shortly. The West Midlands to North West Conurbation multi-modal study will examine options for reducing congestion on the M6 through modal shift. Work on the first tranche of studies will begin in the spring.

  Outer London Orbital Rail Link
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the creation of an Outer London orbital rail link; and if he will make a statement. [69819]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government welcome any viable proposals which might contribute towards a better, more integrated public transport system. Railtrack is responsible for stewardship of the rail network. It will 6
  set out its plans for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the network in its next Network Management Statement, which is due to be published in March.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to prevent trade in endangered species within the European Union. [69820]

  Mr. Meale
  The trade in endangered species is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is implemented within the European Union by Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97. Commercial trade in wild taken specimens of species listed in Annex A of the Regulation is strictly prohibited, although exceptions may be made for research, breeding or educational purposes. The sale of these species is also controlled, including captive bred specimens.

  Train Services (Seating)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average width of a standard class seat on mainline train services in(a) 1989 and (b) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [69828]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what independent assessment his Department has undertaken of London Transport's planned timetable for the opening of the Jubilee Line extension. [69823]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport's (LT's) planned timetable for the opening of the Jubilee Line extension is independently assessed on an on-going basis by the Secretary of State's Agent, Ove Arup and Partners. Ove Arup has been reporting regularly to Ministers since the start of construction. It is on the basis of its reports that we are confident that the extension will be open in time to serve the Millennium celebrations at North Greenwich.

  Railtrack (Property Assets)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for the delivery of increased rail usage of Railtrack's policy towards the disposal of its property assets. [69891]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The disposal of property assets owned by Railtrack is a commercial matter for the company. However, its powers of disposal are limited. Closure of railway lines (as well as passenger services, stations and light maintenance depots) which have been used in connection with railway passenger services at any time within the last five years are subject to consideration by the Franchising Director, the Rail Regulator and the Secretary of State, and wide consultation.
  7

  Millennium Dome (Transport)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussion he has held with Connex in respect of the use of Charlton station for transporting visitors to the Millennium Dome; what is(a) the present and (b) the maximum number of trains per hour which can call at Charlton; and if he will make a statement. [69827]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Surface rail interests are represented at my Millennium Access Co-ordination Group by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). The Managing Director of Connex South Eastern represented ATOC at the first meeting of my group in June 1998, at which we discussed Railtrack's proposals to redevelop Charlton station to improve the interchange with the new Millennium Transit bus service that will operate between the station and the Dome.

  In November, ATOC reported to my group that Connex were considering the provision of additional train services to Charlton for Millennium Experience visitors. The present off-peak service at Charlton station is six trains per hour in each direction to/from Charing Cross/Cannon Street. The maximum number of trains per hour will be dependent upon capacity constraints at all stations on the line and access arrangements for services.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) discussions and (b) correspondence he has had with (i) the Traffic Director for London and (ii) Greenwich Council in drawing up contingency plans for transporting visitors to the Millennium Dome should the Jubilee line extension not be open in time, giving in each case the first date of their involvement. [69826]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have, through my Millennium Access Co-ordination Group, asked London Underground Limited to lead the production of contingency plans to manage problems on any of the main transport links to the Millennium Dome site.

  The Borough of Greenwich became a member of my Millennium Access group in November 1998 prior to which date the interests of all boroughs were represented by the Association of London Government. Greenwich were present when London Underground presented an overview of the contingency plans to the group last month. I have not had any correspondence with Greenwich on this subject.

  I have had no discussions or correspondence with the Traffic Director for London on the plans. I have, however, invited him to attend the next meeting of my group, at which we will be examining London Underground's proposals in more detail. The Traffic Director for London has been a member of the contingency planning working group since November 1998.

  Beacon Council Scheme
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will consult on proposals for a beacon council scheme; and if he will make a statement. [70218]
  8
  Ms Armstrong
  We intend to publish a prospectus tomorrow inviting views on proposals for a beacon scheme to identify and select the best councils, so that others can benefit from their experience, and in the longer term allow new freedoms and flexibilities to be tested.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce details of the revised criteria and ring-fenced annual budget for the Highways Agency for new measures to reduce motorway noise. [69784]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" that we propose to establish revised criteria and a ring-fenced annual budget to provide noise mitigation on some existing trunk roads. We will make an announcement on this shortly.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to ban vehicles with bull bars from public roads. [69258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Having considered the responses to a consultation exercise on options for national action on bull bars, we are currently in the process of identifying how best to take matters forward. As we have always made clear, any action on aggressive bull bars must deal effectively with the complexities involved. It is also clearly sensible for us to take the opportunity to consider bull bars in the context of the wider issue of making all new cars more pedestrian friendly.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his target date for the publication of the new UK Climate Change Programme. [69567]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government aim to publish the new UK Climate Change Programme in good time for UK ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

  Rural Railways
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Organisation Instruction and Guidance issued to the new Strategic Rail Authority in relation to Rail Passenger Partnership funding will allocate a fixed proportion of this funding for use in rural rail infrastructure. [69205]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the terms of revised planning criteria for the Franchising Director to apply in appraising support for passenger rail services. These will guide the allocation of funds for Rail Passenger Partnerships by the Strategic Rail Authority, which will be operating in shadow form from April pending legislation. I cannot anticipate publication of the revised criteria, but applications in respect of rural rail infrastructure will be welcome.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take
  9
  steps to provide for a defence to a charge arising from breach of regulations relating to vehicle emissions where the car in question has passed its MOT within 28 days before the date of a roadside check. [69568]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are currently reviewing the way in which compliance with vehicle emissions standards is enforced at the roadside. The question of mitigating circumstances is being taken into consideration in that process and an announcement on future policy will be made in due course.

  Young Homeless
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to assist young, homeless persons. [69598]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For young people to be without a suitable home can blight their lives and future development and lead to the social exclusion that this Government are determined to tackle. The problems of youth homelessness go beyond the simple provision of accommodation; many other factors are involved and all sectors, statutory, voluntary and business have a contribution to make.

  That is why we have established the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership to bring together senior representatives of central governmental, local government and the voluntary sector. The Partnership is currently working on producing an agreed definition of youth homelessness and estimating the numbers involved. It will also identify what works in tackling and preventing youth homelessness, including the role of local strategies, and disseminate good practice to all the key players. The Partnership will also contribute towards the evaluation of the impact of Government policies on youth homelessness. The work of the Partnership will be underpinned by research to be commissioned later this year.

  We have refocused our DETR section 180 grant programme, which provides grants to voluntary sector organisations concerned with homelessness, to give priority to projects that prevent and tackle youth homelessness. £8.1 million is available in 1998/99 and over 200 projects around England are benefiting from these grants.

  The Government are committed to reducing the most extreme example of homelessness—rough sleeping—to as near to zero as possible in our towns and cities. The Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to address the issue of rough sleeping as one of its first priorities. Their report sets a tough initial target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough throughout England, to a third of its current level by 2002.

  A new Ministerial Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, has been established to ensure effective co-ordination of Government policy in preventing and tackling rough sleeping. The DETR will be responsible for co-ordination of the overall strategy for England on rough sleeping; including housing, health access to employment and training and benefits.

  We will establish a new body for London which will be responsible for reducing the numbers of people sleeping rough in the Capital. The new body will have an
  10
  integrated budget of £143 million over the three years until 2002 to combat rough sleeping and the causes of rough sleeping.

  Outside London, the SEU confirmed that local authorities are in the best position to take the lead on tackling rough sleeping and single, including youth, homelessness. To support local authorities in achieving the target reduction in rough sleeping in their area we have launched a new Homelessness Action Programme which will provide £34 million over the next three years to help voluntary organisations outside London to tackle and prevent rough sleeping. We announced details of over 250 voluntary sector projects which will benefit from this programme on 5 February.

  We have also strengthened the safety net for families and vulnerable individuals who are homeless unintentionally. The revised Code of Guidance on Allocations and Homelessness which will be issued later this year will provide more advice to help local housing authorities develop effective strategies to assist single homeless people including young people.

  Packaging Waste
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on any additional costs for recycling packaging waste arising from recent changes in the law and the method for distributing such costs. [69611]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member of Hazel Grove, (Mr. Stunell) on 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 335.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that wasteholders have a right of access to the Packaging Waste Recovery Note System in respect of waste they deposit for recycling. [69610]

  Mr. Meale
  The Advisory Committee on Packaging referred to this issue in its further advice set out in Sir Peter Parker's letter of 22 December to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, a copy of which is in the Library. The Committee recommended that"individual businesses, who are obligated members of the packaging chain and bring waste for reprocessing, should be given first refusal on the PRN when waste is accepted for reprocessing and that reprocessors should make reasonable forward provision for such parties who wish to have PRNs".
  We are grateful for the Committee's advice and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment hopes to make an announcement on this and other aspects of the Packaging Recovery Note system shortly.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for the sale of school playing fields have come before him since 1 May 1997. [69613]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State's consent to the disposal of land by local authorities under their general powers is only required where they wish to do so at less than the best reasonably obtainable consideration,
  11
  which is normally open market value. No such applications for consent for the sale of school playing fields have come before him since 1 May 1997.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for school playing fields development he has approved. [69614]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held on this basis. The results of appeals and called-in applications are not classified by sites of this type. It is, therefore, not feasible to assemble such information, except at disproportionate cost.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers are available to local authorities to require owners of listed buildings to maintain them; how he monitors the performance of local authorities in discharging their duties in respect of listed buildings; and what powers he has in respect of listed buildings which a local authority fails to protect. [68852]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Owners of listed buildings are under no specific duty to maintain their properties, though it will normally be in their interest to do so. However, local authorities have statutory powers to take action where a building has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk. An authority can serve a repairs notice on the owner of a listed building specifying works it considers necessary for the building's preservation. If no action is taken in response to the notice, the authority can begin compulsory purchase proceedings. In the case of an unoccupied listed building, an authority can—having served notice on the owner—carry out works it considers urgently necessary for the building's preservation and recover its costs.

  My right hon. Friend has powers which are broadly similar to those of local authorities and which he can exercise where he considers that an authority has itself failed to take action. However, his policy is to treat them as reserve powers for use only in exceptional circumstances.

  My Department does not specifically monitor the performance of individual local authorities, but we would normally expect to look into cases where important buildings are reported to be at risk. Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment urges all authorities to maintain and strengthen their commitment to stewardship of the historic environment, to reflect that commitment in their allocation of resources and to consider the use of their statutory powers wherever appropriate.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his official engagements outside London planned for February. [69842]

  Mr. Prescott
  It is not the practice to give details of my forthcoming engagements.
  12

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Devolved Powers
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she proposes to take to ensure that announcements of Government policy on matters which will be devolved take into account the roles of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. [68614]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Ministers are aware of the areas within their responsibility which will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales under the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Ministers are taking this into account in preparing and making announcements of Government policy.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council what was the total number of oral questions tabled to all departments, excluding the Scottish and Welsh Offices but including the Prime Minister in the last session; and what percentage were(a) on the Order of Business on the day in question and (b) actually answered orally. [69575]

  Mrs. Beckett
  26,625 oral questions were put down in the last session to all departments excluding the Scottish and Welsh Offices, but including the Prime Minister.

  7,437 or 27.9 per cent. were on the order of Business on the day in question and 3,149 or 11.8 per cent. were actually answered orally.

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the expected final cost of Portcullis House; when it is due to be completed; what is the cost of(a) furniture, (b) catering facilities, (c) exterior decoration and (d) interior decoration; how many (i) hon. Members, (ii) Parliamentary staff and (iii) ancillary staff will be accommodated in the new building; and if he will make a statement. [69103]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  As previously reported, the forecast outturn cost of the project is £250m. In addition to the capital costs, this figure includes furniture and fittings, professional and construction management fees and VAT. In accordance with the brief agreed by the House in 1992, the building will provide accommodation for 205 hon. Members and at least as many Members' staff. The precise number will depend on individual hon. Members' working arrangements. At this stage figures for the number of ancillary staff, who will be mainly from the Serjeant at Arms and Refreshment Departments, are not available. The select committee and conference rooms will also be heavily used.

  Much of the furniture has yet to be purchased but the budget figures total £3.7m. These figures include the furnishing of the select committee and conference rooms and other communal areas including the refreshment and library facilities as well as the offices of hon. Members and their staff. The cost of the catering equipment, furniture and fittings is £2.4m. All the surfaces, both internal and external, are self-finished so there are no

  13
  costs that could be attributed to decoration. The building is due to be occupied early in 2001. Work remains on schedule.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral statement of 1 February 1998,Official Report,column 593, concerning the lack of insurance cover for travel on 1 January 2000, if she will list the relevant authorities examining the issue in each sector. [69573]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is the responsibility of the transport industry to ensure that their transport services can be delivered without increased risk to the public over the Millennium. However, relevant public authorities are taking steps to ensure that this work is done. These include the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Rail Regulator, Railtrack, the Health & Safety Commission and the Highways Agency. These organisations are also working with relevant international organisations, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the International Maritime Organisation to look at the safety of international travel.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and relevant regulators are also facilitating a programme of independent assessment of preparedness across the UK transport sector as part of a programme of work that is being led by Action 2000 through the National Infrastructure Forum. The first results from this work should be published in the Spring.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  County

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Avon

  1

  6

  0

  13

  0

  11

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  7

  Berkshire

  2

  8

  0

  8

  0

  13

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  11

  0

  4

  0

  0

  County Durham

  0

  14

  0

  7

  1

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  27

  0

  19

  0

  18

  Cheshire

  2

  18

  1

  24

  0

  26

  Cleveland

  0

  13

  0

  20

  0

  23

  Cornwall

  0

  6

  0

  7

  0

  10

  Cumbria

  0

  23

  0

  10

  0

  16

  Derbyshire

  0

  16

  0

  11

  0

  13

  Devon

  0

  39

  2

  40

  0

  34

  Dorset

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  23

  0

  18

  0

  24

  Greater London

  1

  24

  1

  10

  0

  24

  Manchester

  0

  13

  0

  16

  0

  15

  Gloucestershire

  0

  5

  2

  7

  0

  8

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  0

  18

  0

  21

  1

  15

  Hampshire

  1

  35

  1

  41

  2

  50

  Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  18

  1

  20

  0

  11

  Kent

  0

  31

  0

  24

  0

  20

  Lancashire

  0

  93

  0

  62

  0

  66

  Leicestershire

  0

  11

  0

  4

  0

  14

  Lincolnshire

  1

  34

  0

  28

  2

  23

  Merseyside

  2

  27

  0

  7

  0

  16

  Northern Ireland

  1

  15

  0

  12

  2

  20

  Norfolk

  0

  10

  0

  9

  0

  9

  Northampton

  0

  10

  0

  18

  0

  9

  14
  With respect to the availability of travel insurance over the Century date change, I understand that insurance cover remains available for both travel companies and transport companies, as well as for individual members of the public over the Millennium, although any policies may be subject to a number of specific Year 2000 related exclusions.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Fund
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to the Legal Aid Fund of paying Civil Court fees in(a) county court proceedings and (b) High Court proceedings in each of the last five years. [69227]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information on the amount paid for Civil Court fees is not available, as they are claimed as disbursements and the Legal Aid Board does not record these fees as a separate amount.

DEFENCE

  REME
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by county the number of REME officers and regulars recruited in each of the last three years [69328]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information shown in the table reflects the numbers of REME officers and soldiers recruited through the various Army and Armed Forces Careers Offices in each county, in each of the last three years; it does not necessarily reflect individual's areas of origin.
  15

  1996

  1997

  1998

  County

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Northumberland

  0

  13

  0

  8

  0

  8

  Nottingham

  1

  18

  1

  15

  3

  18

  Oxford

  1

  5

  0

  7

  0

  5

  Border Region

  0

  4

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Central Region

  0

  11

  0

  15

  0

  10

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  9

  0

  10

  0

  7

  Fife

  0

  17

  0

  13

  0

  11

  Grampian

  0

  8

  1

  6

  0

  8

  Highland

  0

  11

  0

  14

  0

  9

  Lothian Region

  0

  11

  1

  6

  0

  9

  Strathclyde

  2

  59

  1

  64

  0

  62

  Tayside

  0

  22

  0

  12

  1

  16

  Shropshire

  0

  7

  1

  9

  2

  6

  Somerset

  0

  16

  1

  14

  1

  9

  Staffordshire

  2

  14

  0

  8

  0

  12

  Suffolk

  0

  11

  0

  2

  1

  9

  Surrey

  1

  5

  1

  5

  0

  4

  Sussex

  1

  13

  1

  11

  0

  4

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  52

  1

  31

  0

  27

  Clwyd

  0

  13

  0

  7

  1

  13

  Dyfed

  0

  4

  0

  6

  0

  4

  Gwynedd

  0

  9

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  7

  0

  9

  0

  5

  South Glamorgan

  0

  10

  2

  10

  1

  12

  West Glamorgan

  0

  14

  0

  14

  0

  10

  West Midlands

  0

  35

  0

  27

  2

  20

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  12

  0

  11

  0

  13

  Yorkshire

  1

  85

  2

  85

  3

  97

  Not recorded

  0

  31

  0

  10

  0

  12

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HQ 101 Battalion REME was listed for closure in the first round of recommendations for the future of the Territorial Army proposed by HQ Land Command. [69346]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 657.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many REME regulars were recruited in the North West; how many REME recruits came from North Wales during each of the last five years; and how many of these were recruited via the cadets. [69329]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information shown in the table reflects the numbers of REME soldiers recruited through Army and Armed Forces Careers Offices in the areas shown. It does not necessarily reflect individuals' areas of origin. The numbers shown as Ex-Cadet reflect those who are known to be former cadets and are included in the main total.

  North West

  North Wales

  Year

  Numbers

  Ex-cadet

  Numbers

  Ex-cadet

  1994

  71

  15

  3

  2

  1995

  115

  21

  28

  8

  1996

  151

  33

  22

  7

  1997

  109

  15

  10

  2

  1998

  125

  12

  14

  3

  The regions used are those defined in the publication "Regional Trends" published by the Office for National Statistics.
  16
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to his Department of empty houses vacated by(a) officers and (b) other ranks moving from Chorley 101 REME to Queensferry. [69332]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Vacancies created by the departure of families moving with 101 Bn REME from the Preston area to North Wales are expected to be filled by families attached to other Army units in the Preston area. While there may, therefore, be some short term vacancies associated with this changeover, no costs in terms of long term voids are anticipated at this time.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date TAVRA North West was consulted about the decision to transfer HQ 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry. [69317]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The North West Territorial and Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve Association were consulted on this proposal on 12 October, at a meeting held at Headquarters Land.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the Territorial Army's and (b) the cadets' role in recruiting regulars for the army; and if he will list the recruitment figures for regulars by region in each of the last three years. [69327]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Neither the Territorial Army nor the cadet forces have a specific role in recruiting to the regular Army. However, a number of members of both organisations go on to join the regular Army. The numbers of recruits to the regular Army, by region, in each of the last three years are as follows.
  17

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Region

  Total

  Ex TA/Cadet

  Total

  Ex TA/Cadet

  Total

  Ex TA/Cadet

  East Anglia

  618

  171

  551

  143

  518

  155

  East Midlands

  1,286

  393

  1,136

  274

  1,288

  287

  North West

  2,067

  458

  2,097

  442

  2.363

  408

  North

  1,701

  497

  1,703

  398

  1,848

  390

  South East

  2,632

  1,031

  2,158

  737

  2,395

  603

  South West

  1,168

  346

  1,168

  335

  1,308

  313

  West Midlands

  1,049

  308

  1,019

  304

  1,210

  290

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,649

  424

  1,599

  394

  1,887

  430

  Northern Ireland

  473

  135

  419

  122

  529

  122

  Scotland

  1,660

  426

  1,642

  400

  2,117

  491

  Wales

  813

  217

  922

  234

  1,047

  214

  Location not recorded

  393

  153

  87

  The regions are as defined in the publication "Regional Trends" published by the Office for National Statistics. The figures reflect numbers recruited by Army/Armed Forces Careers Office in the regions in question. They do not necessarily indicate individuals' region of origin.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 529, if he will list the year of submission of each claim for compensation on the grounds of (a) post-traumatic stress disorder and (b) physical injury, with the geographical region where it is alleged the injuries were sustained. [69607]

  Mr. Spellar
  The years in which my Department received the(a) post traumatic disorder claims and (b) physical injury claims to which my hon. Friend refers are set out in the table.

  Year claim submitted

  Post traumatic stress disorder claims

  Personal injury claims

  1979

  —

  2

  1985

  —

  3

  1988

  —

  4

  1989

  —

  3

  1990

  —

  19

  1991

  —

  39

  1992

  —

  51

  1993

  —

  90

  Battalion

  Police division

  Approximate district council boundaries

  Number of patrols 11 May-8 June 1998

  Number of patrols 9 November-7 December 1998

  3 Inf Bde

  Armagh Roulement Battalion1,2

  H

  Armagh, Newry and Mourne

  414

  308

  East Tyrone Roulement Battalion

  K

  Cookstown, Dungannon

  244

  123

  Ballykinler Battalion

  G

  Down, Ards, Newry and Mourne

  118

  6

  3 R Irish

  J

  Craigavon, Lisburn, Banbridge

  355

  300

  8 R Irish

  H

  Armargh

  470

  280

  8 InfBde

  Ballykelly Battalion

  N

  Limavady, Strabane

  22

  7

  Londonderry Battalion

  N

  Londonderry, Strabane

  127

  12

  Omagh Battalion3

  L

  Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh

  128

  133

  4 R Irish

  L

  Fermanagh

  229

  218

  5 R Irish

  O

  Magherafelt, Limavady, Colerain, Moyle, Larne, Antrim, Ballymena, Ballymoney

  27

  0

  18

  Year claim submitted

  Post traumatic stress disorder claims

  Personal injury claims

  1994

  10

  136

  1995

  16

  232

  1996

  40

  574

  1997

  39

  1,053

  1998

  43

  1,498

  1999

  7

  12

  Information regarding the geographical region where the alleged injuries were sustained could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Patrols (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) foot and (b) mobile patrols were carried out in support of the RUC, broken down by approximate district council constituency between (a) 11 May and 8 June 1998 and (b) 9 November and 7 December 1998; [69884]

  (2) how many patrols were carried out by each battalion stationed in Northern Ireland broken down by police division and approximate district council constituencies between (a) 11 May and 8 June 1998 and (b) 9November and 7 December 1998. [69883]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is not possible to differentiate between foot and mobile patrols as many patrols are a combination of both. The information requested about patrols in general is set out in the table.
  19

  Battalion

  Police division

  Approximate district council boundaries

  Number of patrols 11 May-8 June 1998

  Number of patrols 9 November-7 December 1998

  39 Inf Bde

  Belfast Roulement Battalion

  B

  Belfast

  324

  0

  Holywood Battalion

  D

  North Down, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey

  211

  0

  7 R Irish

  A and E

  Belfast, North Down, Castlereagh

  12

  0

  9 R Irish

  D and B

  Lisburn, Antrim

  81

  0

  1 Included the Drumadd Roulement Battalion whose Squadrons supported other battalions in 3 Infantry Brigade's are until 16–17 November 1998 when it was re-located to the mainland.

  2 Includes one company of the Province Reserve Battalion.

  3 Includes one company of the Rural Reinforcement Battalion for the period 11 May-8 June only. It was re-located to the mainland on 23 September 1998.

  A patrol is defined as any foot or mobile patrol in support of the RUC regardless of size or duration. Patrols conducted by the Army for local security around bases are not included.

  Some battalions operate in more than one Police Division.

  Police Divisions are not co-terminous with District Council boundaries. These delineations are therefore only approximate and in some cases a Council area may be covered by more than one Battalion, e.g Lisburn.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on policing MoD areas 24 hours a day; what was his Department's budget for such policing for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; what assessment he has made of such policing (i) nationally and (ii) in Gloucestershire; what discussions he has had with RAF Command Security about this issue; and if he will make a statement. [69505]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence Police provide a civilian policing service to the Ministry of Defence and are available to provide a response 24 hours a day from police officers based at MOD establishments, mobile Area Police Teams, and other specialist services.

  My Department's expenditure on MOD police has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  134

  1996–97

  130

  1997–98

  134

  The forecast expenditure for 1998–99 is £137 million.

  The requirement for Ministry of Defence Police is kept under continual assessment both nationally across the Department and at individual Establishments and geographical areas of the Defence Estate. Gloucestershire is included in these assessments. RAF Command Security are fully involved in these discussions.
  20

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries' armed forces pension schemes have been studied as part of the UK Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review announced on 23 September 1998. [67127]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In undertaking the Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme the MOD will be looking at examples of good practice in other pension schemes. The Review is in its early stages and we have not yet finalised which foreign Armed Forces pension schemes we shall examine. We would, however, expect to consider the schemes of major NATO allies and other Western Armed Forces.

  ASTOR Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned in-service date for the ASTOR programme; and what changes to that date have taken place since May 1997. [69026]

  Mr. Spellar
  The In Service Date, ISD, in May 1997 was 2003. Since then the bidders for the Airborne Stand-Off Radar, ASTOR, programme have been asked to review the feasibility of this in their bids for the Full Development and Production phase of the programme.

  The Department is currently in the process of evaluating bids, and it would, therefore, not be appropriate to make specific comments on any aspects 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 new ISD is dependent upon the selected bid.

  RN Naval Base Clyde
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report,columns 460–61, on RN Base Faslane, on what date BP4 probes started to be used at RN Naval Base Clyde to monitor personnel leaving the reactor compartments of nuclear submarines. [69088]

  Mr. Spellar
  The BP4 probe has been in use at HM Naval Base Clyde for approximately 15 years.

  RN Base Faslane
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the radiation hotspots discovered in Ml 1 workshop at RN Base Faslane in 1989. [69466]
  21
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No radiation "hotspots" were discovered in the M11 workshop in 1989.

  Future Engineer Tank
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Future Engineer Tank; and if he will list the project milestones. [68516]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Future Engineer Tank programme will provide the Army with modern armoured bridge launchers and engineer vehicles to support the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. A number of potential solutions have been identified and the MOD plans to let feasibility study contracts with Vickers Defence Systems, Alvis Vehicles Ltd. and OBRUM in partnership with Marconi Electronic Systems (Land and Naval). Depending on the results of the feasibility study phase, which are expected to report next year, we expect to select one contractor to develop and manufacture both variants.

  We currently require an in service date of around 2004.

  RAF Dishforth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long-term future of RAF Dishforth. [69178]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On current plans, RAF Dishforth will continue to be used both as a helicopter base and for training aircraft operating from RAF Linton-on-Ouse.

  Tornado
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average flying hours in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 for Tornado F3 aircraft in service with the RAF. [69383]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Tornado F3 aircraft each flew an average of 24.5 hours per month in 1997 and 21 hours in 1998.

  Canberra Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average flying hours in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 of Canberra aircraft in service with the RAF. [69674]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Canberra aircraft each flew an average of 21 hours per month in 1997 and 17 hours in 1998.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department adopted the European parliamentary constituencies as a geographical unit for decision making. [69378]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department has not adopted the European Parliamentary Constituencies as a geographical unit for decision making.
  22

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list property owned by his Department which he plans to dispose of with outline proposals for(a) housing, (b) industrial use and (c) other uses, indicating the size of each site and the number of houses or premises projected. [69572]

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

  London Irish Rifles Company
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to assure the continuity of the London Irish Rifles Company. [69485]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The London Irish Rifles will form part of the new London Battalion, which is part of the new structure for the Territorial Army announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November 1998,Official Report,columns 749–71. The London Battalion, which has yet to be given formal name, will have 6 companies with a total strength of some 658 volunteers. The intention is that the units that will make up the London Battalion will be able to retain their capbadge affiliations within the new structure, if they so wish.

  RAF Manston (Military Equipment)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations are taking place into an incident in May 1998 involving a cargo of military equipment flown from RAF Manston destined for South Africa which failed to reach its destination; and if he will make a statement. [68236]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  The investigation of alleged breaches of United Kingdom export controls is a matter for HM Customs & Excise. It is not normal practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of such investigations.

TREASURY

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to write off the debt of Nicaragua with UK institutions. [68469]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The UK has written off all aid loans debt to Nicaragua. We have also pledged that Nicaragua need make no debt service payment to the UK over the next three years, at which time Nicaragua is expected to qualify for debt write off under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance has been given to Nicaragua in the relief effort since Hurricane Mitch; and what assistance he will provide in the future. [68468]
  23
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The UK has contributed £10 million to the trust fund set up by the International Financial Institutions for assistance to meet Nicaragua's multi-lateral debt service obligations and participated in an international debt relief package for Honduras and Nicaragua at the Paris Club, which will amount to over $100 million dollars of debt relief.

  Electronic Warfare
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 25 January 1999,Official Report,column 75,on electronic warfare, what responsibilities of his Department for measures against information warfare will come within the lead responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [68314]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Home Secretary's reply of 25 January set out his new responsibilities to co-ordinate action across government and to work with the private sector to ensure adequate protection for the UK's critical IT infrastructure. The responsibilities of individual Departments have not changed.

  In this context, HM Treasury has responsibility for the regulatory framework for the financial sector. Within this framework, the Financial Services Authority has operational responsibility for banking supervision, which includes ensuring that banks have sufficient systems and controls to protect themselves against the possibility of attack. The Bank of England oversees the UK payment systems industry.

  Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise have responsibility for ensuring the robustness of their systems against attack.

  Defence Pensions Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his latest estimates and forecast expenditure in cash terms for (i) defence superannuation less charges, (ii) civil superannuation less charges and (iii) pension increase payments for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99,(c)1999–00, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [68379]

  Mr. Milburn
  Latest figures for net pensions expenditure can be found in Supply Estimates 1998–99, Main Estimates (Cm 635, April 1998). Supply Estimates for 1999–2000 will be presented to Parliament in the Spring. Figures for historical figures are available in the Appropriation Accounts of the respective departmental votes.

  International Bodies (UK Contributions)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's net contribution to(a) the European Union, (b) NATO, (c) the United Nations,(d) the Council of Europe, (e) the WEU and (f) the OSCE in the latest year for which figures are available. [67119]
  24
  Mrs. Roche
  In 1997–98, the latest year for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's net contributions were:

  £ million

  Organisation

  1997–98 net contributions

  European Community Budget

  2,567

  NATO

  122

  United Nations

  82

  Council of Europe

  17

  WEU

  2

  OSCE

  6

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's total financial contribution to the EU in 1997–98. [69165]

  Mrs. Roche
  The United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC Budget in 1997–98 was £2.6 billion.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend footnote 3 of Table A2 in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review to cover the years 1993–94 to 1997–98. [68389]

  Mrs. Roche
  Outturn figures for the UK's net contribution are published each year in the Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments, the last being Cm 3917 of April 1998. The most current estimate of the figure for 1997–98 is £2.6 billion.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide latest estimates and forecasts for (i) local authority self-financed expenditure and (ii) Scottish non-domestic rate payments, for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [68393]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest estimate and forecasts of local authority self-financed expenditure are shown in the table.

  Local authority self-financed expenditure

  £ billion

  1997–98 estimated outturn

  13.7

  1998–99 estimated outturn

  14.5

  1999–2000 forecast

  15.5

  2000–01 forecast

  16.6

  2001–02 forecast

  17.9

  Scottish Non-Domestic Rates payments distributed to local authorities for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are £1,326 million, £1,395 million and £1,441 million respectively.

  As of 1 July 1999, responsibility for Scottish non-domestic rates will be devolved to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish non-domestic rates yield for 2000–01 and 2001–02 will therefore depend on decisions by the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament.
  25

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would estimate the rates of child benefit for the first and subsequent children from April 1999 required to ensure that if a higher rate taxpayer in receipt of child benefit paid tax on it at(a) the higher rate or (b) the standard rate, the net cash amount of benefit received remained at the level already announced from April 1999; if he would further estimate (1) the gross annual programme cost of increasing child benefit to those levels and (2) what would be the net cost to the Exchequer of raising child benefit to those levels (i) with

  Rates of child benefit

  From April 1999

  First child (£)

  Subsequent children (£)

  Gross cost (£ billion)

  Net cost with no taxation (£ billion)

  14.40

  9.60

  —

  —

  (a) To give equivalent net cash amount when taxed at the higher rate of 40 per cent.

  24.00

  16.00

  5.5

  4.4

  (b) To give equivalent net cash amount when taxed at the basic rate of 23 per cent.

  18.70

  12.45

  2.4

  1.9

  If all child benefit payments to those mothers or lone fathers who were liable at the higher rate of 40 per cent. were taxable, the yield for 1999–2000 would be about £60 million with the child benefit rates at (a) and about £50 million with the child benefit rates at (b). Taxing child benefit for higher rate taxpayer recipients has no consequential effects on benefits.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vacancies there were in operation posts of Customs and Excise in (i) South Wales, (ii) Newcastle-upon-Tyne and (iii) West Yorkshire in(a) January 1995, (b) January 1996, (c) January 1997, (d) January 1998 and (e) at the latest available date. [68815]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The following figures show the vacancies filled during the periods in question.

  South Wales

  Newcastle/West Yorkshire

  January 1995

  1—

  32

  January 1996

  93

  117

  January 1997

  98

  164

  January 1998

  132

  29

  January 1999

  0

  2

  1 No figures available

  Scottish Consolidated Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers of direction he will have over money transferred to the Scottish Consolidated Fund as a consequence of increased investment in specific, nominated projects in England and Wales; if such money would have to be used by the Scottish Parliament for identical projects in Scotland or for projects in the same departmental heading; and what monitoring role his Department would have over the use of such money. [68599]
  26
  no taxation and (ii) with higher rate taxpayer recipients paying tax on the benefit at the higher rate, taking into account the consequential effects on working families tax credit, income support payments and other means-tested benefits. [67795]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The required rates of child benefit and the gross and net costs, are given in the table. The net costs take into account the consequential effects on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit is not affected by changes to child benefit rates.

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Scottish Parliament will have the maximum freedom to determine its own expenditure priorities within the funds allocated to it. Control and scrutiny of spending by Ministers of the Scottish Parliament will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Treasury will continue to collect and publish information on spending in Scotland.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to establish a public service agreement between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive over moneys transferred to the Scottish Consolidated Fund; what will be the purpose of such an agreement; and what discussions he has had with the Scottish Office on this issue. [68430]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: I have no plans to establish a public service agreement between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the real terms annual percentage change in spending in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland between 1996–97 and 2001–02 on (i) education, (ii) health, and (iii) transport, broken down into (1) roads and (2) rail, (iv) housing, (v) police and (vi) local government. [68431]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The allocation of expenditure to the programmes listed (with the exception of police spending in Wales) will be matters for the National Assembly of Wales and the Scottish Parliament when they assume powers on 1 July.

  Smuggling (Tobacco and Alcohol)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work is being undertaken by HM Customs and Excise to include seizures at airports, EU diversion fraud and smuggling in freight containers originating outside the EU within the estimates of the revenue from(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol lost as a result of smuggling. [69532]
  27
  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise's current estimate of the annual revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through the smuggling of tobacco products by air passengers is £50 million. This estimate is contained in a report laid in the House of Commons on 19 November 1998. There is no estimate of the revenue lost through smuggling by air passengers of alcoholic drinks, but this is not believed to be on a comparable scale.

  HM Customs and Excise are currently working with representatives of the trade and other interested parties to establish robust methodologies for the measurement of excise duty evasion as a whole. This work is in keeping with one of the recommendations of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review, which was published in July 1998.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate by HM Customs and Excise of the revenue lost on(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol products as a result of smuggling and bootlegging in the current financial year; and what are the final figures for the last financial year. [69531]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimates for the revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products are produced on a calendar year basis. Their most recent estimates are contained in a report laid in the House of Commons library on 19 November 1998.

  In 1998, Customs estimate that £1,000 million was lost through cross-Channel smuggling of tobacco products, and £220 million through such smuggling of alcoholic drinks. The equivalent estimates for 1997 are £790 million for tobacco products and £180 million for alcoholic drinks. Customs also estimate that the annual revenue currently lost through smuggling of tobacco products by air passengers is about £50 million.

  These estimates exclude any amounts for revenue lost through smuggling in very large freight consignments, for which Customs have not published any estimates.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further resources are planned for HM Customs and Excise to combat smuggling and bootlegging from sources(a) within and (b) outside the EU in addition to those already announced since May 1997. [69553]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs has been allocated £35 million under the Comprehensive Spending Review to tackle evasion of alcohol and tobacco duties. This includes over 100 additional front line staff, both at ports and inland, to combat the smuggling and distribution of illicit goods. The staff will not deal exclusively with goods from within or outside the EU; they will tackle fraudulent activity whatever the source. They will all be in post by 1 April.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions are taking place with customs authorities outside the EU to determine the amount of smuggled alcohol and tobacco products which originate outside the EU. [69529]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are currently working with representatives of the trade and other interested parties to establish robust methodologies 28
  for the measurement of excise duty evasion as a whole. For measurement purposes, the split between EU and non-EU sourced smuggling is a secondary factor.

  Customs and Excise have contact with many non-EU customs authorities for operational purposes.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons seizures at airports, EU diversion fraud and smuggling in freight containers originating outside the EU are excluded from the official HM Customs and Excise estimate of the revenue lost on(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol products as a result of smuggling. [69528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise's current estimate of the annual revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through the smuggling of tobacco products by air passengers is £50 million. This estimate is contained in a report laid in the House of Commons on 19 November 1998. There is no estimate of the revenue lost through smuggling by air passengers of alcoholic drinks, but this is not believed to be on a comparable scale.

  Customs' published estimates of the scale of cross-Channel smuggling and smuggling by air passengers are based on statistical surveys of returning UK passengers conducted each year by Customs. Due to their hidden nature, and lower incidence, it is not practical directly to measure EU diversion fraud and smuggling in very large freight consignments by such means. However, HM Customs and Excise are currently working with representatives of the trade and other interested parties to establish robust methodologies for the measurement of excise duty evasion as a whole. This work is in keeping with one of the recommendations of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review, which was published in July 1998.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) Ministers and (b) officials, indicating the departments represented, who were present at the ECOFIN meeting on 26 January. [69249]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: There was no meeting of the Economic and Finance Council (ECOFIN) on 26 January. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended a meeting of ECOFIN on 18 January, accompanied by a number of officials.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU countries which, at the ECOFIN meeting in Brussels on 26 January, declared(a) in favour and (b) against ecological tax reform; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy. [69306]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The ECOFIN Council agreed at the meeting held on 1 December 1998 to mandate officials to continue work on a framework of energy taxation based on the draft Energy Products Directive. The meeting held on 26 January was a technical working group discussion on the draft Directive. Member States were not asked to say whether they were in favour or against ecological tax reform. The working group is expected to report back to ECOFIN in due course.

  The Government's position on the Energy Products Directive is that we favour some aspects of the proposal, such as higher minimum rates of tax on road fuels.
  29
  However, we could not accept, for social policy reasons, any obligation to impose new taxes on domestic fuel and power. Our attitude to new taxes on business use of energy will depend on the decisions we take in the light of Lord Marshall's report on 'Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy' which was published on 3 November 1998.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has(a) to review and (b) to alter the Barnett formula. [69238]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: I have no such plans.

  Financial Services Bill
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce a timetable for the setting up of the Joint Committee on the proposed Financial Services Bill; when the proposed Membership of the Joint Committee will be announced; what criteria will be used in proposing members; and when the proposed remit of the Joint Committee will be announced. [R] [69183]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The Joint Committee will be appointed after discussions through the usual channels and the necessary motions will be tabled soon.

  Counterfeit Euro Notes
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has evaluated on the printing of counterfeit Euro notes in advance of their distribution; and if he will make a statement. [69196]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: There is no specific evidence available at this stage of any counterfeit Euro notes. But police intelligence is constantly alert to the possibility of such activity. Moreover, there is a framework of international co-operation already in place to combat the counterfeiting of the Euro currency.

  Brazilian Parrots
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the letter of 28 October from the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (3/5658/98) concerning the Customs and Excise investigation into Lear's macaws and other parrots, what is the current position in respect of the Lear's macaws and their return to Brazil. [65406]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: The Lear's macaws and other parrots have been seized as they are suspected to be liable to forfeiture. They are being kept in secure accommodation pending civil condemnation proceedings.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have been referred to the police for 30
  criminal prosecution as a result of pensions mis-selling in the last five years. [68806]

  Mrs. Roche
  None.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the European Court of Justice Ruling (C172/96) on the UK financial services industry; what estimate he has made of the cost of the ruling to HM Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [68816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Court of Justice ruled (C172/96) on 14 July 1998 that foreign exchange (forex) transactions are supplies for VAT purposes. This ruling will effect the extent to which financial institutions will be able to recover VAT on purchases relating to these transactions. In some cases, it will reduce the amount of VAT recoverable, but for those UK financial institutions with a wide range of non-EU, international customers it should increase the amount of recoverable tax. This is because these institutions will now be able to recover the VAT on forex transactions supplied to persons outside the EU where they were not previously able to do so. Some of these same institutions may also benefit if they apply the ruling to forex transactions which were made before 14 July 1998. The ECJ ruling will have no significant effect on the costs of HM Customs and Excise.

  Child Care Vouchers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that child care vouchers issued by employers should not be counted as part of an employee's taxable income; and if he will make a statement. [68964]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to exempt employer-provided child care vouchers from tax as a benefit in kind. Help for child care costs will be available to those who need it most through the child care tax credit, which forms part of the Working Families Tax Credit, to be introduced from 5 October this year.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 14 January 1999,Official Report,columns 430–31, on the New Deal for Young People, what assumptions in respect of savings in benefits and increased tax revenue from those funding work are made in his calculations of the cost per job; and if it is his intention to apply this methodology to other Government programmes. [66592]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: I warmly endorse the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the New Deal for Young People on 14 January 1999, Official Report,columns 431–31. Expenditure on the New Deal is, as he said, money well spent. Early evidence suggests that the New Deal has speeded up the rate of exit from unemployment and the rate of entry into jobs amongst 18–24 year olds.
  31
  The Government's estimate of the average cost of jobs secured so far through the New Deal does not rely on assumptions in respect of savings in benefits and increased tax revenue. However, it does take general account of these factors when assessing the effectiveness of employment or other analogous programmes. As the New Deal increases sustainable employment and reduces structural unemployment, revenue would be gained and benefit outlay reduced as a result. This would contribute to the Government's Welfare to Work agenda, reducing dependency, maximising self-determination and contributing to the development of communities.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available details of his travel arrangements for attending international meetings of finance ministers in September 1997. [70306]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the cost of the chartered helicopter he used between the airport and his hotel in Mauritius when he attended the Commonwealth finance ministers meeting in September 1997; [69412]

  (2) what assistance the British High Commission in Mauritius gave in arranging to charter the helicopter used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between the airport and the hotel during the Commonwealth finance ministers meeting in September 1997. [69413]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I am giving today to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), Official Report,column

  Windfall Tax (Agricultural Land)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tax on windfall profits on the sale of agricultural land for development purposes. [69308]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making his Budget statement on 9 March.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing both expenditure and per capita expenditure for(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England for the years 1992–93 to 1998–99, analysed by the same programmes as Table 7.6B of Cm 3901. [69565]

  Mr. Milburn
  Tables showing identifiable General Government Expenditure (GGE) and identifiable GGE per capita, by territory and broad function, for the years 1992–93 to 1996–97 were published in Chapter 7 of the last edition of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) (Cm 3901). Tables for the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 will be published in PESA 1999–2000.
  32

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombia
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department first made contact with the Pathfinders rescue organisation following the earthquake in Colombia. [69367]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not been contacted by the Association of Pathfinders in relation to the Colombian earthquake. The International Rescue Corps and RAPID UK, which are partners of the Association of Pathfinders, were in contact with my Department and undertook, independently, search and rescue work in Colombia. Both organisations were facilitated in their efforts in-country by the British Embassy in Bogota.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to assist Colombia following the recent earthquake disaster. [69479]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 4 February 1999,Official Report,column 723.

  Technical Assistance Programmes
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's budget for 1997–98 was spent on technical assistance. [69478]

  Clare Short
  In 1997–98 DFID spent £676 million on technical co-operation (comprising capital-related TC, stand alone TC, grants and other aid in kind). This represented 65 per cent. of the Department for International Development's bilateral programme and 33 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the technical assistance programmes that her Department funded in 1997–98. [69477]

  Clare Short
  Technical co-operation expenditure in 1997–98 was allocated regionally as follows:

  Country

  £ million

  Percentage

  Africa

  197

  29

  of which, South of the Sahara

  186

  28

  America

  62

  9

  Asia

  173

  26

  Europe

  87

  13

  Pacific

  5

  1

  Non-region specific

  152

  22

  Total

  676

  100

  33
  Technical co-operation (TC) currently comprises expenditure on capital-related TC, stand alone TC, grants and other aid in kind as follows:

  personnel

  training and scholarships

  knowledge generation (including technology development and research)

  support to the development work of the UK and international voluntary organisations

  grants to the British Council and for other development work by the UK institutions

  non-emergency appeals through multilateral agencies

  British Partnership and Heads of Mission Gift schemes

  funding of land and geological surveys in developing countries

  provision of books, equipment and other supplies in support of TC

  funding of evaluation of aid activities

  cost of certain pensions and related payments where the UK has taken over responsibility from the governments of developing countries.

  Know How Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the budget of her Department from the Know How fund for 1999. [69068]

  Clare Short
  The Know How Fund budget for financial year 1998–99 is that published in the Departmental Report: £79 million.

  Future years are currently being considered in the Resource Allocation Round.

  The final figure will be published in the next Departmental Report in March 1999.

  Overseas Aid
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on overseas aid in 1997–98 by her Department in(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh, (d) Zimbabwe and (e) Kenya. [69166]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development bilateral programme expenditure in 1997/98 to the countries specified is given in the table.

  1997–98

  £ million

  India

  80.9

  Pakistan

  27.8

  Bangladesh

  38.9

  Zimbabwe

  12.2

  Kenya

  29.2

  Aid Debt
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid debt of developing nations has been cancelled by Her Majesty's Government since 1 May 1997. [69225]

  Clare Short
  In September 1997, as part of the Mauritius Mandate, we agreed to cancel the outstanding aid debts, worth £132 million, owed by those lower income Commonwealth countries that are committed to pursuing the international development targets, that are 34
  following sound policies which benefit the poor and promote responsive and accountable government, and that are bearing down on corruption. To date, under this initiative we have cancelled aid debts worth £29 million.

  In August 1997 we agreed a package of assistance to help the Government of Antigua and Barbuda with the costs arising from the influx of people from Montserrat following the volcanic eruptions there. This package included debt relief of £1.25 million.

  In addition, in the last two financial years, we have forgone repayments of aid loans totalling £38.8 million under debt relief agreements reached before May 1997.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's budget in the year 1997–98 was paid(a) directly to other Governments, (b) to non-Governmental organisations outside of the United Kingdom and (c) to the EU. [69226]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Amounts paid directly to recipient country governments (that is, financial aid, programme aid, aid and trade provision, and debt relief) totalled £257 million in 1997–98. This represented 25 per cent. of DFID's bilateral programme expenditure in that year (12 per cent. of total expenditure).

  (b) Payments to non-governmental organisations outside the UK are not separately identifiable in the statistics for 1997–98.

  (c) Our contribution to the EC in 1997–98 was £536 million which represented 56 per cent. of DFID's multilateral programme expenditure in 1997–98 (26 per cent. of total expenditure).

  Human Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with whom she has discussed their human rights record during the last 12 months. [69401]

  Clare Short
  Efforts to secure human rights, including economic and social rights, are an integral part of building sustainable development. These issues are part of my dialogue with all countries where we work.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries in which her Department currently supports programmes to assist street children. [69389]

  Clare Short
  The main countries in which we are currently funding programmes to assist street children are listed. In addition to these country-specific initiatives, we support organisations with programmes for street children in a large number of countries. These include The Consortium for Street Children, UNICEF and the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour of the ILO which, between them, cover all countries.

  Brazil

  Ecuador

  Kenya

  India

  South Africa

  35

  Russia

  India

  Tanzania

  Myanmar (Burma)

  Zambia

  Uzbekistan

  Kurdistan

  Bangladesh.

PRIME MINISTER

  Business Costs (EU Directive)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives which he has identified as affecting business costs and which he is seeking to renegotiate. [69743]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to working with the Commission and other Member States to ensure that EC legislation does not impose unwarranted burdens on business.

  We are actively engaged in the SLIM initiative (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market) which revisits specific EC rules to find ways of making them more effective and less burdensome on individuals and business. Under our Presidency of the EU, we secured agreement to reviews of EC legislation covering electromagnetic compatibility, insurance and social security. We are now participating in further reviews of dangerous substances, pre-packaging and company law legislation.

  The Government are also working to ensure that the impact of new EC legislation is properly assessed. For example, our Presidency of the EU saw the launch of a pilot European Business Test Panel, which consults business on specific proposals at an early stage in the legislative process. We are also seeking early implementation of the Business Environment Simplification Taskforce recommendations to reduce the administrative burdens on small firms. And the commission has now made a commitment to improve its business impact assessment system, known as the fiche d'impact.

  "This Morning" (Interview)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the full transcript of his interview on ITV's "This Morning" programme on 1 February. [69995]

  The Prime Minister
  The transcript was provided by the programme. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the accuracy of the transcript of his interview on 1 February issued by his office to journalists on 2 February; and if he will make a statement. [69994]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a post of co-ordinator of the Government's policies in respect of the homeless. [69271]
  36
  The Prime Minister
  Government policy on homelessness is co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, in consultation with her colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Minister with responsibility for housing, transport and European affairs for Scotland, the Minister with responsibility for the environment and agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Minister responsible for housing in Wales. The problems of rough sleeping are particularly intense in London, where there is borough and district fragmentation and a large number of rough sleepers. We are creating a new single unit for the capital with a unified budget for tackling these issues including housing, health, employment and resettlement to link the work of central Government departments and agencies, local authority services, the voluntary sector and business, as recommended by the Social Exclusion Unit. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing expects to announce the appointment of the new head of the London Unit shortly.

  Carers
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Government's National Strategy for Carers. [69764]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's National Strategy for Carers, "Caring about Carers", is being published today. It describes what we have done so far to support people who provide care for their relatives or friends who are sick, disabled, vulnerable or frail. The Government intend to ensure that all of our policies take account of the needs of carers the majority of who are women. We are also introducing some major new initiatives.

  I announced plans for a National Strategy for Carers, which I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), now the Minister of State, Home Office to lead, on 10 June 1998.

  The report of the National Strategy for Carers is the result of a consultative process, involving a large number of Government departments, carers' organisations, representatives of the National Health Service and of local authorities, other voluntary organisations which help to support carers and the people for whom they care, and a number of individual carers.

  Two-thirds of carers of working age are in paid employment, and the Government's family-friendly employment strategy will help them to combine paid work with their caring responsibilities. We propose to give carers, like all employees, the right to time off to deal with a family emergency. For those carers who cannot combine paid work with caring, perhaps because they need to care for a large part of each day, our policies are focused on proper support whilst caring and on enabling them to return to work when their caring responsibilities cease.

  The National Health Service and local authorities need to provide carers with information about services and to involve them in the planning of those services, so that carers' main needs are met better than they have been in the past. The Government's National Priorities Guidance

  37
  to health and local authorities will require those authorities to help carers to maintain their physical health and emotional wellbeing.

  We have already announced an extra £750 million over the next three years to promote independence through prevention of illness and disease and through rehabilitation. Carers and the people they care for will benefit from this.

  In addition, we are providing funding from within the Comprehensive Spending Review Plans, totalling £140 million over the next three years in England, to local authorities to enhance the provision of services which allow carers to take a break from their caring responsibilities. The new ring fenced special grant will total £20 million in 1999–2000, £50 million in 2000–01, and £70 million in 2001–02.

  The Government also intend, when Parliamentary time allows, to introduce new legislation to extend local authorities' powers to address carers' needs directly, which is frequently not possible at present.

  The Government wish to ensure that all carers have access to a support service in the area in which they live. Health and local authorities, acting together, will be asked to involve carers and their organisations in drawing up jointly agreed plans (for inclusion in their Joint Investment Plans) for provision for carers in their areas, including for carers' support services.

  We intend to trial a new question on carers for the 2001 Census. This should provide better information about the distribution of carers between local authority areas and on the numbers of young carers and those from minority ethnic groups.

  The Government are also announcing today that the scheme for reductions in council tax for disabled people will be changed from 1 April 2000, so that those who live in accommodation which is valued at band A and which has an extra room which they need because of their disability, or enough floor space to allow wheelchair circulation, should receive a reduction in council tax similar to that currently given for the other bands.

  The National Carers' Strategy also contains the Government's proposals to support young carers, including the provision of help for them in schools.

  It is the Government's intention to continue work to support carers and to monitor implementation of these new initiatives.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the number of meetings of, (b) the membership of, (c) the budget of and (d) the issues addressed so far by, the Social Exclusion Unit. [69574]

  The Prime Minister
  The Social Exclusion Unit was established in December 1997. It currently consists of 29 permanent, seconded and temporary staff from a wide range of backgrounds inside and outside the Civil Service.

  Members of the Unit meet frequently with Ministers, officials from other departments, and people with a wide range of experience from outside Government.
  38
  To date, the Unit has completed projects on:

  Truancy and School Exclusion (report published May 1998)

  Rough Sleeping (report published July 1998)

  Neighbourhood Renewal (report published September 1998).

  The Unit is currently working on:
  Further policy formulation on the problems facing poor neighbourhoods, leading to the publication of a new national strategy on neighbourhood renewal to be unveiled in the year 2000.
  Reports to me on Teenage Parenthood and 16–18 year olds not in education, training and/or employment.

  The Unit's total budget for 1998–99 is £822,917.

  Professor Lawrence Freedman
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the(a) role and (b) responsibilities in the Cabinet Office of Professor Lawrence Freedman. [69490]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 646–47.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to raise Spain's closure of the Gibraltar frontier on 29 January with his Spanish counterpart. [69701]

  The Prime Minister
  The border between Gibraltar and Spain was closed on 29 January by a demonstration of Spanish fisherman and their sympathisers. We raised the matter with the Spanish authorities. This demonstration stopped on 30 January. We remain concerned that free movement across the border should be allowed, in conformity with EU obligations, and will continue to make this point to the Spanish authorities at every suitable opportunity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Portadown
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that sums have been identified for a boost package for Portadown linked to efforts to resolve the Drumcree crisis; and from which sources these sums are to be appropriated. [67778]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No decisions have yet been taken about a package of measures for the Portadown area.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment she has made of provision by health and social service boards in Northern Ireland of specialist placement for young persons and adults with autistic spectrum disorder; and if she will make a statement; [68556]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the provisions for children with autism; and if she will make a statement. [68557]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Health and Social Services has not made any assessment of provisions of specialist services for people with autism. However, the
  39
  Department of Health and Social Services Boards, together with the Department of Education, have supported a diagnostic scoping study commissioned by the Northern Ireland voluntary organisation Parents and Professionals and Autism (PAPA). The aims of the study are to evaluate the effectiveness of the current range of services for people with autism and make recommendations for the enhancement of service provision.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young persons and adults with autistic spectrum disorder are provided with specialist services; and if she will make a statement. [68554]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Health and Social Services does not collect information on people with autistic spectrum disorder or the specialist services with which they are provided.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she has had with representatives of health boards about the provision for treatment of children with(a) Kanners autism and (b) autistic spectrum disorder; and if she will make a statement. [68559]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Health and Social Services has not had any discussions with Health and Social Services Boards specifically about the provision of treatment of children with Kanners autism or autistic spectrum disorder. The special health and social needs of autistic children are provided by Trusts' learning disability and child health staff, as appropriate, and the Department is in regular contact with both Boards and Trusts about the provision of care in those specialties.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many children with autistic spectrum disorder in Northern Ireland are educated in schools or units which specialise in teaching children with autism; and if she will make a statement; [68555]

  (2) what plans she has to ensure that every child with autism in Northern Ireland receives a minimum of an hour's one-to-one teaching each day by a qualified teacher; and if she will make a statement. [68558]

  Mr. McFall
  Information on autistic children in Northern Ireland is not held centrally. However, the Education and Training Inspectorate estimate that some 265 children with autistic spectrum disorder are currently enrolled at those special schools which cater for children with severe learning difficulties. The training provided for the teaching staff in these schools includes training to assist them in teaching children with autism. Education and Library Boards may arrange for particular levels of teaching support to be provided for individual children in accordance with their special educational needs and I have no plans to specify the minimum provision to be made for children with autism at this time.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended 23 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; [68725]
  40
  (2) if she will list for the week ended 23 January the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [68724]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 17 and 23 January 1999, there were 4 shooting incidents and 3 bombing incidents.

  The numbers of casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks are as follows:

  By Loyalists

  By Republicans

  Assaults

  4

  0

  Shootings

  2

  1

  Total

  6

  1

  Note:

  Figures may be subject to minor adjustment in the event of further information coming to light

  The figure for shooting incidents includes 3 separate incidents resulting in 3 casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks and the fourth incident is not yet attributable to any grouping.

  The bombing incidents reported are not yet attributable to any grouping; however, one has been claimed by the Orange Volunteers and two by the Red Hand Defenders.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the prospective release dates of all prisoners qualifying for early release under the Belfast Agreement. [69091]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information in respect of prospective release dates is shown in the list. It provides the calculated release dates in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for prisoners who have successfully applied to the Sentence Review Commission and who have received Substantive Determinations. Those listed with prospective calculated release dates falling after 28 July 2000 have a right to be released on that day. Details of individual prisoners names are not given for sensitivity and safety considerations. The information contained in the list is as at 4 February 1999.

  15 February 1999

  21 February 1999

  1 March 1999

  13 March 1999

  14 March 1999

  15 March 1999

  15 March 1999

  24 March 1999

  28 March 1999

  1 April 1999

  3 April 1999

  13 April 1999

  13 April 1999

  15 April 1999

  17 April 1999

  23 April 1999

  26 April 1999

  30 April 1999

  41

  10 May 1999

  16 May 1999

  16 May 1999

  22 May 1999

  6 June 1999

  15 June 1999

  16 June 1999

  21 June 1999

  21 June 1999

  21June 1999

  10July 1999

  10 July 1999

  14 July 1999

  16 August 1999

  26 August 1999

  31 August 1999

  1 September 1999

  6 September 1999

  7 September 1999

  7 September 1999

  10 September 1999

  14 September 1999

  17 September 1999

  19 September 1999

  10 October 1999

  12 October 1999

  20 October 1999

  21 October 1999

  1 November 1999

  16 November 1999

  20 November 1999

  23 November 1999

  26 November 1999

  10 December 1999

  11 December 1999

  11 December 1999

  16 December 1999

  20 December 1999

  21 December 1999

  11 February 2000

  11 February 2000

  14 February 2000

  21 February 2000

  21 February 2000

  7 March 2000

  13 March 2000

  20 March 2000

  22 March 2000

  25 March 2000

  27 March 2000

  10 April 2000

  22 April 2000

  4 June 2000

  8 June 2000

  19 June 2000

  22 June 2000

  1 July 2000

  15 July 2000

  42

  15 July 2000

  24 July 2000

  31 July 2000

  29 August 2000

  20 September 2000

  5 October 2000

  5 October 2000

  8 October 2000

  22 November 2000

  1 December 2000

  1 December 2000

  1 December 2000

  1 December 2000

  7 December 2000

  8 February 2001

  19 February 2001

  16 March 2001

  24 March 2001

  17 April 2001

  26 May 2001

  8 June 2001

  9 June 2001

  16 June 2001

  21 June 2001

  23 June 2001

  23 July 2001

  24 July 2001

  25 July 2001

  27 July 2001

  12 August 2001

  25 September 2001

  25 September 2001

  25 September 2001

  1 October 2001

  21 October 2001

  21 October 2001

  22 October 2001

  4 November 2001

  12 November 2001

  14 November 2001

  24 December 2001

  12 February 2002

  13 March 2002

  13 March 2002

  29 April 2002

  12 June 2002

  25 June 2002

  8 July 2002

  28 August 2002

  18 November 2002

  11 March 2003

  13 March 2003

  8 April 2003

  25 July 2003

  6 August 2003

  10 November 2003

  2 December 2003

  7 February 2004

  43

  15 February 2004

  16 March 2004

  24 March 2004

  14 October 2004

  19 March 2005

  10 May 2005

  10 August 2005

  17 August 2005

  2 November 2005

  18 November 2005

  18 November 2005.

  Wild Animal Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to bring Northern Ireland law into line with that of Great Britain regarding the import of wild animals. [69285]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: A consultation paper setting out proposals for Northern Ireland legislation equivalent to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was issued by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on 5 February 1999. A copy has been placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sports Organisations (Media Takeovers)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on takeovers of sporting organisations by media organisations. [65634]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Director General of Fair Trading advises on mergers which qualify for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Where a merger raises concerns in respect of a particular market it can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation. All cases are considered on their individual merits.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which papers relating to BSkyB' s takeover of Manchester United were brought to the attention of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson); and what meetings his predecessor attended with(a) BSkyB and (b) Manchester United's management. [67287]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 18 January 1999, Official Report,column 363,and to the reply to Question 65643 tabled by the Member for Buckingham, answered above.

  Mirror Group Flotation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the flotation of the Mirror Group; [65587]

  (2) if he will publish an interim report into the inquiry on the flotation of the Mirror Group. [65586]
  44
  Mr. Byers
  The Inspectors have not completed their inquiries. No interim report has been prepared by them. It is important for the inspection to be completed as quickly as is possible and for a final report to be submitted. The publication of an interim report could delay the publication of a final report.

  Hollis Industries Plc
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of his Department's Ministers had responsibility for his Department's inquiry into alleged accounting offences by Hollis Industries plc during the period from September to December 1998. [65592]

  Mr. Byers
  On 23 September 1998 my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) decided, after a discussion with the Permanent Secretary, that neither he nor any other DTI Minister should be involved in these inquiries and that they should be handled by officials. Ministers remained accountable to Parliament for any actions or decisions taken by officials.

  Gas Generation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what economic appraisal he has made of the additional energy costs to British industry which would result from an extension of the moratorium in gas generation approvals after spring 2000. [69180]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: As set out in paragraph 10.18 of the October 1998 White Paper, "Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071), the Government do not consider that the stricter policy on consents for gas-fired power stations will have an adverse impact on competitiveness. This conclusion will remain valid, both before and after Spring 2000, if the conditions for relaxing the policy have not been met.

  Former Ministers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken by his predecessor to ensure that the business affairs of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) were investigated by his Department without ministerial involvement. [66451]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: On 23 September 1998, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided, after discussion with the Permanent Secretary, that neither he nor any other DTI Minister should be involved in the inquiries the Department was making following certain allegations relating to companies with which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had been involved. No papers generated by the Department's inquiries, or concerning their substance, were at any time shown to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to evaluate and audit the military, security and police
  45
  equipment exported to Saudi Arabia by British Aerospace which, under the A1 Yamamah agreement, is exempt from export licence requirement. [68330]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Equipment supplied to Saudi Arabia under the A1 Yamamah programme is covered by contracts placed on British Aerospace by the Ministry of Defence. Prior to contract placement, the same criteria as those used for export licensing are applied when evaluating requirements.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export licences granted to GKL Group for the export of armoured vehicles components and weapons to Indonesia since 1988. [68329]

  Dr. Howells
  Inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Where confidential information is involved, the parties concerned may be asked if they consent to its disclosure, and this can take some time. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the military and paramilitary export licences granted to(a) Sky Air Cargo and (b) Occidental Airlines between 1 January 1996 and 1 January 1999, indicating the export category and country of destination in each case. [68238]

  Dr. Howells
  The export of specified military and paramilitary equipment is controlled under entries in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and no standard or open individual export licences covering goods with such ratings are recorded as having been issued to these companies between 1 January 1996 and 1 January 1999.

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

  Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry(a) resigned his directorships and (b) sold his share holdings in (i) Juniper Communications Ltd., (ii) Juniper Production Ltd., (iii) Kaizuka Films Ltd., (iv) Spring Communications Ltd. and (v) Attractions Ltd. [67865]

  Mr. Byers
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry resigned his directorships and sold his shares in Juniper Communications Ltd., Juniper Productions Ltd., Kaizuka Films Ltd., and Spring Communications Ltd. on 16 July 1998. The completion of formalities in relation to the legal (ie. non beneficial) interest in the shares occurred on 14 January 1999. As set out in his statement of 29 January 1999, which was placed in the Libraries of both Houses, he and his wife have retained a limited 46
  financial involvement with Juniper Communications Ltd. He resigned as a director and sold all of his shares in Attractions Ltd. on 7 January 1999.

  Ministerial Office Attendance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the days on which he attended his office between 23 December and 8 January. [67476]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I attended when necessary.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66216]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 4, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which Saudi Arabian organisation was identified as the end user on the 1993 trans-shipment licence granted by his Department for the transfer of electro-shock batons from the United States to Saudi Arabia via the United Kingdom; [68195]

  (2) how many electro-shock batons were shipped from the United States via the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia under the trans-shipment licence that his Department granted in 1993; and if he will identify the company listed as the end user on the trans-shipment licence. [68196]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter dated 1 August 1997 to her from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), in which he stated that this licence covered the transhipment of 90 batons. A copy of this letter was placed in the Library of the House. The stated end-user was the security staff of the Arabian Oil Company Ltd.

  Research Councils (Studentships)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many research council funded studentships have been unfilled in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1996–97. [67156]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Table 1 sets out the data for the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Table 2 sets out the data separately for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) as the introduction of the four year "MPhys/ MSci" degrees at undergraduate level has affected take-up, and PPARC' s current policy has allowed carry over of unfilled studentships from year to year.
  47

  Table 1: Unfilled studentships

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Research council

  Provision

  Unfilled

  Provision

  Unfilled

  Provision

  Unfilled

  BBSRC

  740

  7

  740

  10

  740

  16

  EPSRC

  3,782

  219

  3,725

  376

  3,814

  558

  ESRC

  921

  0

  981

  8

  1,166

  24

  MRC

  340

  23

  351

  20

  350

  17

  NERC

  544

  13

  538

  3

  546

  6

  Total

  6,327

  262

  6,335

  417

  6,616

  621

  Notes:

  1. The figures show the number of new studentships made available each year which were not taken up.

  2. For BBSRC, the take-up figures are as at 1 January, for EPSRC 1 November, for ESRC 15 October, for MRC 30 September, and for NERC 31 July. The 1998–99 figures for BBSRC, EPSRC and MRC are provisional, as confirmation of the take-up of studentships may continue for several months yet, for example, in EPSRC's case until 31 March.

  Table 2: Research Studentships

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Research Council

  Provision

  Taken up

  Provision

  Taken up

  Provision

  Taken up

  PPARC

  150

  112

  158

  172

  167

  171

  Notes:

  1. The figures show the number of new research studentships awarded in each year and the number taken up. PPARC's policy has allowed carry over of unfilled studentships from year to year.

  2. PPARC also made provision of 15 advanced course studentships in 1996–97, all of which were taken up.

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the implementation of the Working Time Directive in the mining industry. [68912]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Draft regulations to implement the Working Time Directive were published for consultation on 8 April. DTI Ministers received a couple of responses from the quarrying sector but have not received any representations from the coal mining industry in response to the consultation or since.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role will be played by the Minister with special responsibility for small firms in the Government's consultation with small businesses on the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency. [68972]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: As Minister with responsibility for small firms I am concerned to ensure that the arrangements over the levy to recover some of the costs of establishing the Food Standards Agency are fair to the smaller businesses involved. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs takes a strong interest in the development of these proposals and will continue to be involved as they evolve.

  Power Stations
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the power stations with FGD, indicating their capacity and the cost of installation of FGD in each case at current prices. [69065]

  Mr. Battle
  There are two power stations currently fitted with FGD abatement: Drax, owned by National Power plc with current registered capacity of 3,945 MW, and Ratcliffe, owned by PowerGen plc with a current registered capacity of 2034 MW.
  48
  In the February 1995 prospectus for the sale of the Government's remaining shares in the two companies, National Power estimated the capital cost of installing FGD at Drax at about £650 million and PowerGen estimated the capital cost of installing FGD at Ratcliffe at about £250 million. These estimates were made at the time the FGD plant was being installed.

  In recent years, the cost of FGD plant has fallen. On 27 January 1999, Eastern Generation Ltd. applied for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to retrofit FGD abatement to its 2012 MW plant at West Burton. In its original announcement of the project, Eastern Generation estimated the cost as being
  "in excess of £100 million".

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the cost of electricity per KWh produced by(a) existing coal-fired power stations, (b) new CCGT gas-fired power stations and (c) existing coal-fired power stations with FGD. [69064]

  Mr. Battle
  The costs of electricity from gas-fired and coal-fired power stations were considered as part of the Government's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation.

  The views of consultees and the Government's conclusions relating to new CCGT gas-fired stations and existing coal-fired stations, with and without FGD, are set out in paragraphs 5.38 to 5.41 of the Government's October 1998 White Paper "Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Protected Coal Market (Emissions)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the impact on emissions of Government policies which have protected the market for coal. [69566]
  49
  Mr. Battle
  The White Paper of October 1998, "Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government responses to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071), set out the Government's programme of reform in the electricity market and introduced a stricter policy on consents for gas-fired stations to protect diversity and security of supply while the programme of reform was under way. The White Paper discussed the environmental aspects of the Government's policy in Chapter 9 (Achieving sustainable energy supplies). An environmental appraisal was provided as Annexe H.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the issuing of statutory redundancy payments by his Department. [68033]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The responsibility for making a statutory redundancy payment lies in the first instance with the redundant employee's former employer. It passes to the National Insurance Fund, however, in cases where the former employer is insolvent or otherwise unable to meet it, for example by reason of severe financial difficulty. We keep this aspect of the employment rights legislation under review, but have no plans to change it at present. The Department' s Redundancy Payments Service processes applications for payment, working to performance targets published in its Service Charter and reviewed annually.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy to ensure that the MAI is negotiated in open session in the World Trade Organisation. [69487]

  Mr. Wills
  Negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) are no longer taking place. The Government are now pursuing a long-held objective, shared by their EU partners, of placing the international investment issue on the agenda of the World Trade Organisation. However, any investment negotiation in the WTO would be a new negotiation, based on a new set of objectives to be established by consensus. The Government will continue to work within the WTO to achieve the maximum degree of openness on this and on other issues, and will keep the British public fully informed of their own actions.

  Civil Aircraft and Research Demonstration Budget
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the Civil Aircraft and Research Demonstration budget. [69500]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the allocations for all DTI budgets, including CARAD, will be announced when the Department publishes its Expenditure Plans Report in March.

  Company Closures
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) Juniper Communications
  50
  Ltd, (b) Juniper Productions Ltd, (c) Kaizuka Films Ltd, (d) Spring Communication Ltd and (e) Attractions Ltd ceased trading. [68793]

  Mr. Byers
  Records at Companies House show that none of the 5 companies indicated has ceased trading, in the sense of being dissolved. However, 3 of them, Juniper Productions Limited, Kaizuka Films Limited and Spring Communications Limited, are currently dormant.

  Cassini Space Probe
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential environmental risks of NASA's Cassini Space Probe. [69215]

  Mr. Battle
  Before launch, NASA have commissioned two independent risk assessments, and scientists of the European Space Agency, of which the UK is a member, independently evaluated the mission. The spacecraft design meets demanding safety criteria set by the United Nations and independent US health and safety organisations.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in Wales are claiming compensation for suffering from vibration white finger; and if he will make a statement. [69537]

  Mr. Battle
  The total number of Vibration White Finger claims received by IRISC, the Department's claim handlers, from people in Wales is 6,286.

  I am pleased that the complex negotiations between the DTI, who inherited British Coal's liabilities, and the Plaintiff Solicitors Group, who represent the majority of the claimants, have produced an agreement on the compensation levels for miners suffering from VWF. The agreement announced in the High Court in Manchester on 22 January means an end to uncertainty for the some 31,000 ex-miners who have made claims to date. They can now look forward to receiving fair compensation which will be based upon a claimant's British Coal working history, age and the medical assessment of the level of damage caused by the use of vibrating tools.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Safeguards Office Review of The Nuclear Materials Accountancy Aspects of the UKAEA' s Dounreay Shaft Inventory report, what were(a) the number of man days expended on safeguards by Euratom inspectors and (b) the number of facility attachments, material balance areas and particular safeguards provisions applying to Dounreay. [69625]

  Mr. Battle
  A precise figure for the number of man-days expended by Euratom inspectors at Dounreay is not available because such information is not recorded routinely by the Safeguards Office. However, Euratom safeguards inspector presence at the site is essentially continual.
  51
  There are currently eight material balance areas at Dounreay. The particular safeguards provisions for the site are contained in a single document. In the early 1980s, the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) fuel cycle at Dounreay was designated for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the terms of the UK/ Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement, at which time three facility attachments were agreed. No facilities at Dounreay are currently designated for inspection by the IAEA.

  Cashmere Export Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to visit Leicester to meet representatives of the cashmere export industry. [69014]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to visit Leicester to meet representatives of the cashmere export industry at present. The Department of Trade and Industry does however understand the industry's concerns over the threatened US tariffs arising from the banana dispute. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working hard with the European Commission to resolve this dispute, and will be pleased to meet hon. Members who wish to discuss the matter further.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he met(a) the Chairman and (b) the Chief Executive of British Aerospace plc during 1998; and what subjects were discussed on each occasion. [68625]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: I did not meet the Chairman or Chief Executive of British Aerospace plc during 1998.

  Art Market
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he expects the draft Directive on artists' resale rights to be decided on at the next meeting of the Internal Market Council. [69277]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The draft Directive on artists' resale rights is expected to be on the agenda for the meeting of the Internal Market Council on 25 February. While a large majority of member states, unlike the United Kingdom, support the principle of harmonisation in this area, it is not yet clear whether it will be ready for agreement by then. The Government are continuing to make clear their opposition to this measure, and are working to try to minimise the damage it would do to the competitiveness of the UK's international art market.

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action has been taken to avoid conflict of interest in respect of the biotechnology responsibilities of the Minister for Science and the Gatsby Trust Foundation; [66696]

  (2) what responsibility the Minister for Science has concerning matters which relate to the Gatsby Trust Foundation. [66694]
  52
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: There is no such body as the Gatsby Trust Foundation. However, the Minister for Science established the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and has made substantial charitable donations to it. However, since his appointment as a Minister he has had no involvement in the Foundation's grant-making decisions. Furthermore, Lord Sainsbury wrote to the Trustees on 31 July 1998 asking them not to disclose or divulge to him any information regarding the investments of the Foundation while he is in Government.

  Lobby Companies (Ministerial Access)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the lobby companies and their clients that had access to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), in his official capacity at meetings in the Department or at specially arranged meetings between July and December 1998. [67324]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: I am not aware of any such meetings.

SCOTLAND

  Retail Petrol Supplies
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many petrol filling stations closed in Scotland(a) in 1997 and (b) in the period 1 January to 30 June 1998. [68924]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on petrol filling station closures is not held centrally. The study "Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland", however, found that during the last six months of the study five closures occurred between late summer and late winter 1997. The study also reported that the number of petrol retail outlets across the UK reached a peak in the 1960s, following which there has been a gradual and continuing decline.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he and his officials have held with the Director General of Fair Trading since 1 January 1998 on the issue of retail petrol supplies in rural areas of Scotland; and what was the outcome of those discussions. [68922]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Officials at The Scottish Office have regular discussions with officials of the Office of Fair Trading, most recently about the allegations concerning Esso, about which I am writing to the OFT myself. The Office of Fair Trading has a duty to keep markets under review, with a view to identifying anti-competitive or monopolistic behaviour. I understand officials from the OFT are to meet representatives of Highlands and Islands Hydrocarbons Action Group in March, and will also shortly be meeting representatives of Esso.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many petrol filling stations in the Highlands and Islands enterprise area are supplied respectively by(a) Shell, (b) BP, (c) Esso and (d) other suppliers. [68921]
  53
  Mr. Macdonald
  Information obtained in 1997 for the purposes of the study "Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland" showed that the number of petrol filling stations in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Area supplied by Shell, BP, Esso and others is as follows:

  Number

  Shell

  33

  BP

  90

  Esso

  74

  Other

  61

  Total

  258

  Note:

  The information obtained related to local authority areas, and therefore includes all petrol stations in Argyll and Bute Council's area, some of which is outwith the area served by HIE.

  Source:

  Environmental Resources Management and Dr. R. Sidaway (1997) Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland. Commissioned by The Scottish Office Rural Affairs and Natural Heritage Division

  From 1 July 1999, assistance to industry will be a matter covered by the Scottish Parliament, but competition and energy policy will continue to be reserved to Westminster.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the retail petrol market in the Highlands and Islands enterprise area; and if he will make a statement. [68923]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Any assessment of competition in the retail petrol market in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, or indeed elsewhere, is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, but The Scottish Office itself examined aspects of the retail petrol market in the study Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland,published in July 1998. As a result, £400,000 a year over the next 3 years has been allocated to carrying out infrastructure work at remote petrol stations. This year, £240,000 of this support is going to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. I met with representatives of Esso myself on 3 February to discuss the present situation.

  From 1 July 1999, assistance to industry will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but competition policy and the activities of the OFT will continue to be reserved to Westminster.

  Prisoners (Offences)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of offences by inmates referred to the police by prison governors in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [68546]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information concerning the number of offences referred to the police by prison governors is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Prisons (Drug Use)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of reported drug use there were in prison establishments in Scotland(a) in each
  54
  of the last 12 months and (b) in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [68544]

  Mr. McLeish
  Figures on reported drug use in prison establishments in Scotland are available from the mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme. This includes samples taken as part of a random sample (10 per cent. of all prisoners each month); from prisoners suspected of misusing drugs; from prisoners known previously to have used drugs; from prisoners being assessed for specific opportunities, including open conditions and home leaves; and as part of reception testing of those recently admitted to prison.

  Interim figures for the financial year April 1998 to March 1999 are available for the period up to and including December 1998, and are shown in the table:

  Month/year

  Number tested

  Number positive

  Percentage positive

  1998

  April

  1,110

  328

  30

  May

  1,018

  312

  31

  June

  1,066

  320

  30

  July

  1,050

  322

  31

  August

  1,101

  339

  31

  September

  971

  270

  28

  October

  1,086

  271

  25

  November

  1,064

  289

  27

  December

  901

  242

  27

  Final figures for the financial year 1998–99 will be reported in the 1998–99 Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts. For the last three months of the financial year 1997–98, figures were as follows:

  Month/year

  Number tested

  Number positive

  Percentage positive

  1998

  January

  977

  319

  33

  February

  1,027

  311

  30

  March

  1,116

  333

  30

  Figures are not available prior to February 1996, the date from which mandatory drug testing was phased in across the Scottish prison estate.

  In the last two months of the financial year 1995–96, testing took place in two establishments. A total of 315 urine samples were taken, of which 135 returned positive, a rate of 43 per cent.

  In the financial year 1996–97, 4,855 samples were taken from prisoners, of which 1,654 returned positive results, a rate of 36 per cent.

  In the financial year 1997–98, 12,093 urine samples were taken from prisoners in the mandatory drug testing programme, of which 3,779 returned positive results, a rate of 31 per cent.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  55

  Police (Manpower)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers per head of population there were in each police force and in total(a) on the last

  30 September 1998

  30 June 1998

  30 June 1997

  31 March 1992

  Central

  2.58

  2.54

  2.47

  2.36

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3.02

  2.97

  2.81

  2.60

  Fife

  2.44

  2.44

  2.43

  2.28

  Grampian

  2.30

  2.30

  2.23

  2.26

  Lothian and Borders

  3.01

  3.04

  3.06

  2.96

  Northern

  2.36

  2.33

  2.30

  2.37

  Strathclyde

  3.18

  3.18

  3.21

  2.95

  Tayside

  2.94

  2.93

  2.84

  2.69

  Total

  2.91

  2.91

  2.90

  2.74

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

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police stations there were, in each police force and in total(a) on the last date for which

  30 September 1998

  30 June 1998

  30 June 1997

  30 March 1992

  Central

  710

  700

  681

  645

  Dumfries and Galloway

  445

  437

  414

  385

  Fife

  850

  849

  847

  790

  Grampian

  1,214

  1,214

  1,180

  1,161

  Lothian and Borders

  2,641

  2,668

  2,689

  2,534

  Northern

  659

  653

  643

  653

  Strathclyde

  7,233

  7,228

  7,302

  6,763

  Tayside

  1,154

  1,149

  1,116

  1,053

  Total

  14,906

  14,898

  14,872

  13,984

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

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those functions carried out by civilian staff in each police force; how many civilian staff were employed in each police force in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [69025]

  Mr. McLeish
  Civilian support staff in each police force are under the direction and control of the chief constable, who is responsible for the functions they perform. Guidance issued to chief constables in Police Circular No. 9/1996 distinguishes between tasks which do not require police powers and should normally be done only by support staff, and tasks which can be done mainly by support staff but require some contribution from police officers. I have arranged for a copy of this Circular to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The numbers of civilian staff requested are shown in the table.

  30 September 1998

  30 September 1997

  30 September 1996

  Central

  187

  183

  158

  Dumfries and Galloway

  176

  182

  127

  Fife

  247

  240

  234

  Grampian

  449

  419

  379

  Lothian and Borders

  972

  936

  936

  56
  date for which figures are available, (b) in May 1998, (c) in May 1997 and (d) in April 1992. [68548]

  Mr. McLeish
  The figures, to the nearest available dates, per thousand population are shown in the table.

  figures are available, (b) in May 1998, (c) in May 1997 and (d) in April 1992. [68547]

  Mr. McLeish
  The figures, to the nearest available date, are shown in the table.

  30 September 1998

  30 September 1997

  30 September 1996

  Northern

  272

  256

  252

  Strathclyde

  1,910

  1,878

  1,736

  Tayside

  372

  348

  331

  Total

  4,585

  4,442

  4,153

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

  Prison Visitors (Drug-related Offences)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many visitors to prisons were arrested for drug related offences in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [68543]

  Mr. McLeish
  All prisons face the risk of prisoners visitors seeking to bring illegal drugs into establishments, and take a variety of measures to prevent it. Appropriate action is taken where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, and any visitor who is caught is referred to the police. Records are not, however, maintained by the Scottish Prison Service of the number of arrests which arise from such action.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  57

  Prisoner Activities
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of purposeful activity per week undertaken by prisoners, broken down into(a) education, (b) training, (c) work and (d) rehabilitation programmes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [68545]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is not available centrally in the detail sought. Figures for the number of prisoners engaged in work are recorded and provided in the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts. The numbers involved in vocational training are collected separately. The figures are shown in the table:

  Year

  Average daily number of convicted prisoners employed

  Percentage of prisoners employed involved in training

  1993–94

  4,146

  12.5

  1994–95

  4,094

  12.0

  1995–96

  3,982

  11.3

  1996–97

  4,001

  13.8

  1997–98

  3,932

  10.1

  Targets for participation in rehabilitation programmes were first set for the Scottish Prison Service in 1996. In 1996–97, 381 prisoners completed cognitive skills programmes and 67 completed sex offender programmes. In 1997–98, 635 prisoners completed cognitive skills programmes and 91 completed sex offender programmes.

  The Scottish Prison Service is developing a computerised management information system for regime activity to support continuous improvement in prisoner programmes and other opportunities. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police Stations
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police stations there were, in each

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Average case costs

  Criminal

  882

  958

  957

  1,000

  1,073

  Civil

  1,011

  1,176

  1,425

  1,583

  1,685

  Advice and Assistance

  87

  90

  92

  97

  99

  Annual change in cash terms

  Criminal

  n/a

  +76

  -1

  +43

  +73

  Civil

  n/a

  +165

  +249

  +158

  +102

  Advice and Assistance

  n/a

  +3

  +2

  +5

  +2

  Annual change in real terms

  Criminal

  n/a

  62

  -28

  13

  46

  Civil

  n/a

  149

  209

  111

  59

  Advice and Assistance

  n/a

  1

  0

  2

  0

  These figures illustrate that average case costs for the three main categories of legal aid show a rising trend even when inflation is discounted. We are determined to address value for money while maintaining access to justice.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  58
  police force and in total (a) on the last date for which figures are available, (b) in May 1998, (c) in May 1997 and (d) in April 1992. [68549]

  Mr. McLeish
  The figures requested for 1992 are shown in the table. The number of police stations is no longer collected centrally.

  Number of police stations at 31 December 1992

  Central

  23

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25

  Fife

  56

  Grampian

  77

  Lothian and Borders

  60

  Northern

  92

  Strathclyde

  199

  Tayside

  50

  Total

  591

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

  Speed Cameras
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average(a) capital cost and (b) annual running cost of a new speed camera. [69021]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A fixed site camera of the type used on trunk roads in Scotland costs around £52,000, including installation. Police forces administer the operation of these cameras and information on running costs is not held centrally.

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

  Legal Aid
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average annual cost of a legal aid case in each of the last five years; what was the annual change in(a) real and (b) cash terms; and if he will make a statement. [69022]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is set out in the table.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on legal aid in each of the last five years; what was the annual change in expenditure in cash and real terms; and if he will make a statement. [69023]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is set out in the table.
  59

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total expenditure on legal aid cases

  124.418

  132.052

  133.36

  143.149

  145.065

  Change in cash terms

  n/a

  +7.634

  +1.308

  +9.789

  +1.916

  Change in real terms

  n/a

  +5.774

  -2.466

  +5.514

  -1.761

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

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current eligibility criteria for receiving legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [69024]

  Mr. McLeish
  Advice and assistance on matters of Scots law is available without contribution to any applicant in receipt of income support, income-based Job Seeker's Allowance and family credit. It is also available without contribution to any applicant whose disposable income (in respect of the 7 days up to and including the date of application) does not exceed £72 and whose disposable capital does not exceed £1,000. Advice and assistance is also available subject to a contribution to any applicant whose disposable income is between £72 and £172 and whose disposable capital does not exceed £1,000.

  Assistance by Way of Representation (ABWOR) is a form of advice and assistance available in criminal proceedings and in certain non-criminal proceedings such as mental health tribunals and failure to obey a court order. Solicitors can provide ABWOR if an applicant satisfies the advice and assistance financial tests.

  Civil legal aid is available subject to applicants satisfying the statutory tests of financial eligibility, probable cause and reasonableness. It is available without contribution to any applicant in receipt of income support or income-based Job Seeker's Allowance. It is also available without contribution to applicants whose annual disposable income and capital do not exceed £2,625 and £3,000 respectively. Applicants with an annual disposable income between £2,625 and £8,571 and disposable capital between £3,000 and £8,560 must pay a contribution.

  Summary criminal legal aid is granted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and solemn criminal legal aid is granted by the courts.

  No formal means test is applied to an applicant for criminal legal aid. Instead, it must be demonstrated that the accused could not meet the expenses of his defence without causing undue hardship to himself or his dependants. In addition, applicants for summary criminal legal aid must be able to demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice that it be awarded.

  We are committed to ensuring access to justice, effective targeting and value for money from the legal aid budget.

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

  Fixed Penalty Speeding Fines
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been raised by fixed 60
  penalty speeding fines; and what was the annual cost of administering them in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [69020]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information on the amount raised by fixed penalty speeding fines and on the administration costs is not available in the form requested. However, £3.2 million was received by district courts in Scotland in 1997–98 for fixed penalty notices for endorsable traffic offences, which included speeding offences.

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

  National Strategy for Carers
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the Government's National Strategy for Carers. [70302]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government's National Strategy for Carers is being published today. It describes what the Government have done so far to support carers and how we can improve the quality of life for the many carers in our society by ensuring that the needs are identified and met. It focuses on how carers can be informed, involved and empowered, and how employers can help carers combine paid work with their caring responsibilities. It sets out what carers should be entitled to expect from service providers and how they can be helped by services in the neighbourhood in which they live. The strategy details proposals to support young carers.

  The report is the result of a consultative process, involving a large number of Government departments, carers organisations, individual carers, representatives of the National Health Service and local authorities, other voluntary organisations which help to support carers and the business sector.

  The National Health Service and local authorities need to provide carers with information about services which can support them in their caring role. They also need to involve carers in the planning and provision of services so that carers' needs are met better than they have been in the past.

  Local authorities in Scotland have been allocated over £1 billion for social work this year, of which £5.1 million is specifically to provide respite and assist carers. Authorities will have an additional £51.3 million in 1999–2000 to meet their social work responsibilities and are expected to use some of these resources to improve services to carers; £5 million will be available to local authorities implementing the recommendations of the Action Plan to modernise community care, a key element of which is supporting carers.

  The Government will also be consulting on proposals that time spent caring will entitles carers to a second pension (by 2050, up to an extra £50 per week in today's terms).
  61
  We intend to trial a new question on carers for the 2001 Census. This should provide better information about the distribution of carers between local authority ares and on the numbers of young carers and those from minority ethnic groups.

  Consideration will be given to extending New Deal to help carers return to work and special help for disabled children, technology to help carers and housing and transport.

  Legislation reducing council tax for disabled people will be introduced. The Government also intend to introduce legislation in England to allow local authorities to address carers' needs more directly than is possible at present, as the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), has announced today. We would hope such legislation will be introduced in Scotland.

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

  It is our intention to continue work to support carers and to monitor implementation of these new initiatives.

  Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assist salmon farmers in the Highlands and Islands to meet the costs of eradicating Infectious Salmon Anaemia; and if he will make a statement. [70303]

  Mr. Dewar
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia is potentially a very serious disease and the Government remain determined to eradicate this present outbreak in Scotland. That is the best outcome we can achieve, both for the salmon farmers and for wild salmon stocks. The salmon farming industry must recognise its responsibilities to deal effectively with this outbreak.

  The Government have put in place various measures to eradicate ISA, and further measures will be announced shortly when an interim report by a joint Scottish Office/Industry Working Group is completed. I welcome the co-operation of the industry.

  I recognise that this eradication programme is imposing significant costs on the industry, particularly for farms where ISA is confirmed. The Government continue to take the view that, in principle, it is for the fish farming industry to meet costs arising from measures taken to control the spread of serious fish diseases. Salmon farming, however, provides very valuable employment in the Highlands and Islands, and the continuing uncertainty, which is undermining confidence in the industry and among investors, presents a serious threat to the economic well-being of the region. In these circumstances I have agreed to enable financial aid to be provided through Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the industry. Up to £9 million will be available over 3 years, on a pound for pound matching basis for contributions from industry funds, to help individual farmers meet costs arising under the ISA eradication programme from new outbreaks of ISA. The detailed terms for such assistance will need to be settled. That offer of assistance is subject to approval by the European Commission under the usual state aid rules. No aid will be paid without the Commission's approval.
  62
  The assistance will be limited to a period of 3 years, and within that time salmon farmers will need to put in place alternative financial arrangements. We shall keep the eradication programme under regular review.

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

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the London banisters' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70035]

  Mr. McLeish
  No such services were provided.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints he has received about the CSA since 1 January. [68020]

  Angela Eagle
  Last month the Child Support Agency received around 2,500 complaints from individuals and hon. Members. My Ministerial colleagues and I have also received 106 letters from hon. Members, over the same period, though not all of these relate to operational issues.

  Personal Advisers
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training will be provided to personal advisers working for the new deal for the disabled. [68023]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Personal Adviser Service is currently being piloted in six areas, with a further six planned to start in April. All Personal Advisers in the first six areas are trained to provide advice, guidance and counselling to disabled people to help identify and overcome their barriers to employment.

  Savings (Retirement)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the difficulties faced by those on low and modest incomes in providing for their retirement. [68025]

  Mr. Timms
  Our Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" recognised the difficulties in saving for retirement faced by those on low and modest incomes.

  This is why we are proposing a new State Second Pension which will give more help to those with low earnings (up to £9,000), as well as carers and the long-term disabled with broken work records due to long-term disability.

  From April 1999, the new minimum income guarantee will ensure a decent income in retirement for all.
  63

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that all eligible pensioners claim the minimum income guarantee. [68028]

  Mr. Timms
  We are planning action to invite claims to the Minimum Income Guarantee at key points when entitlement may arise because a higher amount becomes payable—when a pensioner reaches the age of 75 and 80, or when he or she is awarded Attendance Allowance.

  Later in the year, we plan to run a national publicity campaign which will be designed to get the message over to as wide an audience as possible that the Minimum Income Guarantee is an entitlement.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in the north-west at present receive family credit. [68029]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest information available is for August 1998 when there were 118,900 families in the North West receiving Family Credit.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum due to totals.

  Source

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of families who are currently in receipt of(a) £0–£4.99, (b) £5–£9.99, (c) £10–£19.99, (d) £20–£29.99, (e) £30–£39.99, (f) £40–£49.99, and (g) £50 or above a week in family credit; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for the proposed working families tax credit. [69493]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of families receiving Family Credit by range of award, August 1998

  Thousand

  £ per week

  All families

  All cases

  782.5

  Under £5

  11.7

  £5–£9.99

  15.7

  £10–£19.99

  44.0

  £20–£29.99

  55.1

  £30–£39.99

  68.3

  £40–£49.99

  75.5

  £50 and over

  512.2

  Note:

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum to the total.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards

  Number of families receiving working families tax credit by range of award, 2000–01

  Thousand

  £ per week

  All families

  All cases

  1,240

  Under £5

  30

  £5–£9.99

  50

  64

  Number of families receiving working families tax credit by range of award, 2000–01

  Thousand

  £ per week

  All families

  £10–£19.99

  130

  £20–£29.99

  110

  £30–£39.99

  80

  £40–£49.99

  90

  £50 and over

  750

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on a combination of the Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards and the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey. They are consistent with Pre-Budget Report forecasts.

  2. Estimates do not include any behavioural changes arising from the introduction of the credit.

  3. Estimates have assumed that any future increases in the credits or threshold are exactly offset by an increase in earnings of WFTC recipients.

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he intends to take to reform the administration of housing benefit. [68031]

  Angela Eagle
  We are taking forward a wide-ranging review of Housing Benefit with the aim of simplifying and improving both the benefit itself and the way in which it is delivered. In the meantime, we have in place several measures to drive forward better delivery of Housing Benefit including the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's programme of visits to local authorities, improved communications between the Benefits Agency and local authorities through the use of IT, and extra funding and support for local authorities to operate the verification framework.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to review the operation of housing benefit. [68041]

  Angela Eagle
  We are taking forward a wide-ranging review of housing benefit in consultation with local authorities and other interested parties. The aim of the review is to simplify and improve both the benefit itself and the way in which it is delivered.

  Active Modern Service Programme
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on the active modem service programme. [68032]

  Angela Eagle
  Significant progress has been made within the Active Modem Service Programme. In recent weeks we have selected a private sector partner; Affinity, who will work with us to develop new IT systems. These new systems will enable us to deliver improved Social Security services and deliver our welfare reform programme. Working in partnership with the Department of Education and Employment and Employment Services, we have begun development of a single gateway to the welfare system to help people back to work. Finally, we have started to evaluate the modem service prototypes, piloted in Camden and Lewisham. Both these pilots successfully tested the provision of an integrated service to customers and we are using the lessons learnt to feed into our plans.
  65

  Pensions (Disabled People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the pensions of long-term disabled people. [68034]

  Mr. Timms
  Currently, those who are in receipt of certain disability benefits can earn credits towards their basic state retirement pension.

  The Pensions Green Paper published in December set out our proposals to extend the new State Second Pension to long term disabled people with broken work records. They will receive flat-rate credits subject to a simple contribution test. This will represent a significant improvement in the financial position of disabled people in retirement.

  Poorest Pensioners
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the support available for the poorest pensioners. [68035]

  Mr. Timms
  From April 1999 we are introducing a £2.5 billion package of measures to help tackle pensioner poverty over the next three years. This package includes a minimum income guarantee, delivered through income support, for the poorest pensioners and an annual payment towards winter fuel costs for all eligible pensioner households.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is taking to assist lone parents to find work. [68037]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to providing viable choices for lone parents who, in the past, were written off to a life on benefit.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents which was launched nationally on 26 October offers all lone parents on Income Support, for the first time, a personal adviser service to help them overcome the barriers to employment. The programme provides support and advice on training needs, jobsearch, better-off in-work calculations, child care and in-work support for those who need it. Current progress under the programme suggest that our approach is in tune with what lone parents want: the vast majority of lone parents who attend an initial interview decide to participate in the programme.

  In addition to this, the Working Families Tax Credit will make work pay and the National Childcare Strategy will also help lone parents move into work: the Childcare Tax Credit under the Working Families Tax Credit will provide more support towards helping parents with child care costs; and a total investment of £470 million in the National Childcare Strategy, including £170 million from the Lottery for new out of school child care—to ensure that good quality affordable child care is available in every neighbourhood.

  Pensions Green Paper
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in response to the Government's Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" (Cm 4179). [68038]
  66
  Mr. Timms
  Our Pensions Green Paper has attracted a great deal of interest. We have already received a number of written responses and expect to receive many more by the closing date of 31 March.

  State Pensions
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's proposed pensions reforms upon marginal savers. [68039]

  Mr. Timms
  The reforms outlined in "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions" should, through better quality and less expensive second pensions and more state support to reduce reliance on means tested benefits, increase the returns to voluntary saving.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to increase financial security for retired people. [68043]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's objectives are to provide security for those who cannot provide for themselves and to make it easier for people who can save, to do so. We have announced, in the Pensions Green Paper, that we will be replacing SERPS with a new State second pension for those on low incomes, or those who are unable to work because of caring responsibilities or disability. We also propose new stakeholder pension schemes, designed to help those on middle and higher incomes make provision for their retirement.

  From April, we will introduce a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners of at least £75 a week for single people, and £116.60 for couples. We have announced that, as resources allow, over the long term, our aim is that it should rise in line with earnings so that pensioners can share in the growing prosperity of the nation. Those pensioners who are not able to build up an adequate pension during their working lifetime will be able to receive the minimum income guarantee.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increase in the basic state pension would be required to take it to the level of the EU average. [68044]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not available. Because of the diverse nature of state pension schemes in European countries, it is not possible to make meaningful calculations of the sort requested.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the over-80 age addition to the basic state pension. [68027]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to increase the 25p age addition.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of(a) increasing the basic state pension to £75 for all single pensioners and (b) providing income support to guarantee pensioners an income of at least £75 per week; and if he will make a statement. [69503]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Department of Social Security gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, columns 624–25.
  67
  The estimated costs to Income Support of guaranteeing eligible pensioners an income of at least £75 per week, as outlined in the Comprehensive Spending Review package of measures for poorer pensioners, is £265 million.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate is based on increasing all the pensioner premium rates in April 1999 by £3.10 for single pensioners and £4.95 for pensioner couples, over and above uprating in line with prices. The April 1999–2000 rates of the single/couple personal allowance and the corresponding pensioner premium are as follows:

  Income Support pensioners in receipt of the Ordinary Pensioner premium, those aged 60–74, singles—£75.00, couples—£116.60.

  Income Support pensioners in receipt of the Enhanced Pensioner premium, those aged 75–79, singles—£77.30, couples—£119.85.

  Income Support pensioners in receipt of the Higher Pensioner premium, those aged 80+, singles—£82.25, couples—£125.30.

  2. The estimate is based on Departmental forecasts and uses the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey. The cost is at 1999–2000 prices and benefit levels, assumes existing levels of take up, and has been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Child-raising Costs
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist parents with the costs of raising children. [68040]

  Angela Eagle
  From next April the largest ever increase in Child Benefit of £2.95 for the first or eldest child will be payable to all families, a similar increase in the family premium will ensure the poorest families see the benefit of the increase. This is in addition to the extra £2.50 a week for children under 11 paid through the income-related benefits from November 1998.

  A Green Paper published last year set out our proposals for a new, simpler and more transparent system of child support to ensure that more lone parents receive the maintenance which their children are due.

  We also plan to extend the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (worth £35.85 a week) to 3 and 4-year-old severely disabled children. This will also provide access for them and their families to the Motability Scheme.

  We consider that helping parents to work is the best form of assistance; the Working Families Tax Credit from October 1999 will provide more generous help to low income families.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the level of his Department's planned total spending for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [68042]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government's spending plans, which were announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, have been generally welcomed as desirable, prudent and sensible, concentrating increases in the priority areas. Under these plans, spending on Social Security benefits will grow for this Parliament at less than half the rate of the previous Parliament.
  68

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to introduce changes to jobseeker's allowance. [68009]

  Angela Eagle
  A large-scale research programme to evaluate Jobseeker's Allowance is being conducted and will conclude later this year. The findings from that programme will enable us to consider what changes might need to be made. In the meantime, we will consider changes to Jobseeker' s Allowance where problems occur or when a reason for amendment is identified.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in respect of the payment of jobseeker's allowance to employees made redundant when their employer goes into receivership. [69000]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received a number of letters on this matter. Since it came to our attention we have been working to simplify the complex legislation in this area. We are currently considering proposals for changes to the relevant benefit rules.

  Carers
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional support he plans to provide to carers. [68021]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Government are committed to supporting carers in their valuable role. Many people with caring responsibilities are not able to make adequate provision for their retirement. Those carers who are in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance, Home Responsibilities Protection because they care for someone receiving Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance and those who receive Child Benefit whilst their youngest child is under 5 will receive flat-rate credits to the new State Second Pension, helping to lift them above the Minimum Income Guarantee in retirement.

  Means-tested Benefits (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimates, based on the Family Resources Survey 1996–97 of receipt of means-tested benefits and liability for income tax among pensioners consistent with his answer of 5 November 1997,Official Report, columns 249–50. [68150]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not currently available. Information on liability for income tax is not directly available from the Family Resources Survey. We need to refine the raw data further before we can provide the information. We anticipate that we will be able to do so after February 1999.

  Disability Living Allowance (Constituent's Appeal)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Price of Coalpit Heath, a constituent, can expect the appeal against the withdrawal of his Disability Living Allowance lodged on 27 October 1998 to be heard. [68585]
  69
  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of claims to Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 4 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when Mr Price of Coalpit Heath, can expect the appeal against the withdrawal of his Disability Living Allowance (DLA) lodged on 27 October 1998 to be heard.

  I should explain that the Agency aims to prepare cases for appeal within 30 days. This has not happened in Mr Price's case and our service, in this instance, has clearly been unsatisfactory. I apologise for this.

  Part of the process of preparing an appeal is a re-appraisal of all the evidence, including that submitted in support of the appeal. In Mr Price's case, that evidence included a statement from Mr Price's General Practitioner which you sent to the Disability Benefits Unit on 16 November 1998.

  This re-appraisal has now taken place and I can tell you that Mr Price's DLA has been re-awarded at the previous rate from 10 July 1998 for an indefinite period. Mr Price is being advised accordingly.

  Clearly, in these circumstances the appeal will not need to go ahead. Should Mr Price want any more information about this, or any other aspect of his DLA award, the operational team leader, Colin Schools, on telephone number 01253 331019, will be pleased to assist.

  May I thank you for drawing this to my attention.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [68398]

  Mr. Timms
  The following changes in responsibilities relate to this Department. They demonstrate our commitment to rationalising functions across Government in order to modernise service delivery and to implement policy as effectively as possible.The Contributions Agency will transfer from DSS to the Inland Revenue from April this year. Responsibility for policy on National Insurance contributions is also to transfer to the Inland Revenue, but the date for this has not yet been set.
  Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance will be replaced from October 1999 by Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit; these will be the responsibility of the Inland Revenue. At the same time the Family Credit Unit will transfer to the Inland Revenue.
  From April 1999, DSS funding provision for asylum seekers is being transferred to the Home Office. This is the precursor to new Home Office support arrangements for asylum seekers.
  Responsibility for administration of Social Security, child support and vaccine damage payment appeals will be transferred to a new Departmental Executive Agency.
  Existing DSS resettlement provision for London is to be combined with provision from other Departments within a new London body in April 1999. It is proposed that the remainder of the DSS resettlement programme be transferred to the programmes of the DETR (principally the Housing Corporation)
  70
  in England and to the Scottish and Welsh Offices. This is consistent with the Social Exclusion Unit's proposals for a joined-up approach in its report on Rough Sleeping.
  The Women's Unit and the Women's National Commission (NDPD) transferred to the Cabinet Office at the end of July 1998.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been affected adversely by the introduction of NIRS2 computer system; and if he will break down this total by each claimant group. [68820]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the Written Answers I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 4 November 1998 Official Report, columns 603–06, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 18 January 1999, Official Report, columns 368–69.

  180,000 Retirement Pensioners and 30,000 Widows Benefit recipients are currently in receipt of initial awards or emergency payments. Up to 20,000 Incapacity Benefit recipients may be affected, of whom 8,000 have been referred to Income Support. There are currently 36,000 Jobseeker's Allowance interim payments being made.

  In some of these cases, the amounts being paid will be correct, but in many cases they will be less than the amount due. All will be reviewed once the NIRS2 system is fully operational.

  Young Homeless
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to assist young, homeless persons. [69599]

  Angela Eagle
  This Department supports organisations which provide temporary accommodation and an active resettlement programme for single homeless people under Section 30 of the Jobseekers Act 1995. All of the projects receiving Section 30 funding cater for young people aged 18–25, and 35 per cent. cater for 16–17 year olds.

  In the current financial year, over £13.2 million is available in revenue funding to enable projects to operate on a break-even basis and over £5 million in capital to build new hostels or to refurbish existing buildings. This supports over 4,200 bed spaces, with nearly 300 more being developed. Provision has increased in recent years, particularly for women, people under the age of 25 and those with specific problems, such as drugs and alcohol.

  The Social Exclusion Unit's report on Rough Sleeping recommended that the Department's resettlement provision for London be combined with provision from other Departments within a new London body, from April this year. It is proposed that the remainder of the Department's resettlement programme be transferred to the programmes of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (principally the Housing Corporation) in England and to the Scottish and Welsh Offices. This better co-ordinated approach is intended to reduce the number of rough sleepers, including young people sleeping rough, by two thirds by 2002.
  71
  Income related benefits, including Housing Benefit when accommodation is found, are available to young homeless people, subject to the normal conditions of entitlement.

  This Department is represented on the Ministerial Committee on Rough Sleeping, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

  Benefits for pregnant women under 18

  Benefits

  Qualifying criteria

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Certain unemployed young people in prescribed groups, such as those at the end of the Child Benefit Extension Period can get JSA, as can those who can demonstrate that they would suffer severe hardship if JSA was not paid. Young people who are estranged from, or living apart from, their parents for good reasons (including the possibility of abuse) are one of the groups who can get JSA while looking for work or training.

  Income support

  Those incapable of work by reason of pregnancy, and those within 11 weeks of their expected week of confinement and up to 7 weeks following the date on which the pregnancy ends;

  Social fund maternity payments

  Awarded to recipients of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance (or, if under 19, be a member of a family where one of these benefits has been awarded) who make the claim within the prescribed time limits

  Housing Benefit

  Young people who live independently and have a liability to pay a commercial rent are entitled to claim Housing Benefit, irrespective of whether they are pregnant. If entitled they will receive the normal under 25 personal allowance (currently £39.85)

  Council Tax Benefit

  As there is no liability for Council Tax from anyone under 18, Council Tax Benefit is not paid to this group

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  (a) that she must have been continuously employed by her employer for at least 26 weeks into the 15th week (the qualifying week) before her expected week of childbirth and to have stopped work for that employer;

  (b) that her normal weekly earnings for the period of 8 weeks ending with the qualifying week are not less than the lower earnings limit for the payment of national insurance contributions;

  (c) that she is pregnant and has reached or been confined before reaching the start of the 11 th week before the expected week of childbirth.

  Maternity Allowance

  (a) that she is pregnant and has reached, or has been confined before reaching the start of the 11th week before the expected week of childbirth;

  (b) that she has been employed or self-employed for at least 26 weeks in the 66 weeks immediately preceding the expected week of childbirth;

  (c) that she has actual paid employed earners and/or self employed earners national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in the 66 weeks immediately preceding the expected week of childbirth;

  (d) that she is not entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay for the same week in respect of the same pregnancy.

  Special dietary provision

  Qualifying criteria

  Welfare foods

  All pregnant women in families entitled to income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance are entitled to receive milk tokens which may be exchanged for seven pints (or four litres) of cows' milk per week. Vitamin supplements are also available free of charge

  Pensioners (Benefit Take-up)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of pensioners currently receiving(a) housing benefit, (b) council tax benefit and (c) income support. [69817]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Income support, housing benefit, and council tax benefit pensioner recipients—May 1997

  Benefit

  Thousand

  Income Support

  1,720

  Housing Benefit

  1,853

  Council Tax Benefit

  2,646

  Notes:

  1. The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures have been recently revised and supersede any previously released figures.
  72

  Pregnant Women
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the benefit arrangements for pregnant women below 18 years of age, (b) the special dietary provisions organised by social services for pregnant women and (c) the criteria for eligibility for (a) and (b). [69668]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  2. Figures at May 1997, the latest date for which figures for all three benefits are available.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent.

  4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. Pensioners are defined as single people aged 60 or over, or couples where one or both members is aged 60 or over.

  6. Information refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  7. The information excludes second adult rebate cases.

  8. There is an overlap in the figures as many people receive Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1997.

  2. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. Sample inquiries for recipients with and without Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (Income-based), taken at the end of May 1997.
  73
  At August 1998, the most recent date for which information on Income Support recipients is available, there were 1,651 thousand pensioners receiving Income Support.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Funding Review Panel
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the BBC Funding Review Panel will consider the concession for the blind; and if he will make a statement. [69101]

  Janet Anderson
  The review panel will consider the concession for blind people together with the other current concessionary arrangements.

  Independent Radio Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many independent radio stations catering principally for the Muslim community operate in the United Kingdom. [69060]

  Janet Anderson
  There are no full term independent local radio stations catering specifically for the interests of the Muslim faith. However, some independent radio stations which provide services for Asian communities, such as Sunrise Radio in Bradford and Asian Sound Radio in East Lancashire, operate in areas with a high Muslim population, and their service is expected to reflect this. In addition, the Radio Authority issues short term Restricted Service Licences which enable stations to broadcast during special events such as religious festivals.I understand the Authority licensed thirteen such short-term services for the most recent Ramadan festival.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the running of independent radio stations in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [69061]

  Janet Anderson
  From time to time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives representations about various aspects of the operation of individual radio stations. These include concerns about programme content and management of the licences. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, the Radio Authority is responsible for the award and regulation of all independent radio licences in the UK.

  Millennium Dome (Catering)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if applicants for contracts for catering facilities at the Dome were interviewed by a panel which included a person who was not employed by the New Millennium Experience Company; [69085]

  (2) what tendering procedure was used for the catering facilities in the vicinity of the Dome; [68179]

  (3) what steps were taken by the NMEC to ensure that interviews for catering contracts were conducted by the same panel; [68175]
  74
  (4) what external legal advice was taken by the NMEC before commencing the tenders procedure for catering contracts. [68174]

  (5) if all applicants for catering facilities at the Dome were interviewed by the same panel. [67269]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) adopted a competitive tendering process for procuring a range of catering services. The NMEC had previously sought general advice from Treasury Solicitors about public procurement rules and regulations to satisfy itself that the processes it was implementing to procure goods, works and services across the project reflected the competitive principles of public sector procurement. The interviewing panel comprised three voting and one independent members. The aim of the panel was to bring the bidders to a position where they were all on an equal footing given that the nature and the content of each bid varied. Consequently, therefore, the questions put to each bidder were framed differently depending on the written material provided by them. Of the three voting members, all were present at all interviews. The independent non-voting members varied and included the NMEC's Deputy Operations Director and the Chair of the NMEC Catering Review Group.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if visitors to the Millennium Dome will be able to purchase food free of Genetically Modified Organisms. [67484]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Visitors to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich will be able to purchase a wide variety of foods including food free of Genetically Modified Organisms.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what provision there is for(a) Chinese food, (b) halal food and (c) kosher food at the Dome; [68183]

  (2) what is his policy on the provision of ethnic food at the Dome. [67268]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's policy is to provide as wide a range of catering services and food types as possible at the dome recognising the varied tastes which the anticipated 12 million visitors will have. Ethnic cuisine and food meeting some religious needs will be available. Foods from around the world will be showcased in the Global Food Court and elsewhere within the Dome.

  Millennium Experience (Catering)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the procedures that were followed in respect of advertising, tendering and awarding the concession for supplying ice cream in the Millennium Experience and if similar procedures were used in respect of other concessions; [67668]

  (2) to whom the concession for the supply of ice cream in the Millennium Experience has been granted. [67667]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has made no announcement about the supply of ice cream to the Dome. Since its establishment in 1997 the NMEC has been openly seeking private sector support for the project and, as a result, companies across all
  75
  sectors of the economy have been free to approach NMEC with proposals. Very many have done so including those in the confectionary/ice cream sector. Where NMEC consider that such approaches hold a serious prospect of achieving commercial support which will not adversely impact on the integrity of the Millennium Experience, discussions are entered into. This was the case with approaches received from confectionary/ice cream suppliers where NMEC considered that their Official Supplier category of sponsorship support might be achievable. Official Supplier sponsorship is a well-established practice across major events and visitor attractions where there is a requirement or opportunities for enhancing commercial income.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [68399]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Comprehensive Spending Review did not result in the discontinuation or transfer of any DCMS responsibilities to other Government Departments or to executive agencies. A number of executive functions which prior to the Review were undertaken by the Department are being transferred to relevant NDPBs. These are:funding of the Pairing Scheme to the Arts Council of England;
  funding of the Sportsmatch scheme to the English Sports Council;
  funding for the Heritage Grant Fund and the Architectural Heritage Fund to English Heritage;
  funding for the Royal Society of Arts Art for Architecture scheme to the new national body for architecture;
  management responsibility for a number of central London statues and for Marble and Wellington Arches to English Heritage;
  some executive functions relating to underwater archaeology will be transferred to English Heritage, subject to a legislative opportunity. Administrative responsibility for the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites will also be transferred out of the DCMS, in discussion with the heritage agencies of the other Home Counties, and the devolved administration once established;
  subject to Parliamentary approval, management responsibility for Parliament and Trafalgar Squares will be transferred to the Greater London Authority when it is established;
  subject to agreement on the transfer of funding, responsibility for the maintenance of Marlborough House will transfer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to DCMS on 1 April 1999;
  the Department has agreed to take over responsibility from the Ministry of Defence for that part of the Public Meteorological Service related to basic weather forecasts that are provided for the BBC.

  Millennium Dome (Safety)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive regarding public safety at the Millennium Exhibition in Greenwich. [64649]
  76
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) are in regular discussions with the Health and Safety Executive and other relevant authorities regarding public safety at the Millennium Experience.

  Millennium Dome (Trade Unions)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to include a display relating to the history of trade unions in the United Kingdom in the Millennium Dome. [64807]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has no plans to include a specific display on the history of trade unions in the Dome.

  Millennium Dome (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total amount of sponsorship raised for the Millennium Dome by IMG. [67485]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 363.

  Millennium Dome (Access)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements have been made to ensure that the Millennium Dome is fully accessible for disabled people. [67251]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The Access Advisory Group was the first advisory group to be established by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). It held its first meeting in June 1997 and considers accessibility and special needs issues in relation to the Dome. Members are drawn from a range of voluntary sector organisations covering physical, sensory and learning disabilities, mental health issues and the needs of older people. The group is chaired by Mr. David Phillips of Holiday Care Service.

  The NMEC aims to provide for the needs of people with disabilities in an exemplary fashion, taking full account of advice from the experts on the Advisory Group. The Group has advised the Company on a wide range of accessibility issues including transportation, parking, the natural and built environment, displays and facilities, on-site information and promotional materials, ticketing arrangements, and disability awareness training.

  Parking will be available for Orange Badge holders on a pre-booked basis, close to the Dome entrance. There will be landtrains available; there will be level, ramped or list access to all areas, displays and features; and there will be wheelchairs available for those who require them. Suitable toilets will be available at each of the six service cores in the Dome and elsewhere around the site.

  Millennium Dome (Spirit Zone)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress in securing a sponsor for the Spirit Zone of the Dome. [68178]
  77
  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) are making good progress towards securing support for the Spirit Zone from a number of sources.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the membership of the Board of the NMEC and their remuneration. [68180]

  Janet Anderson
  Details of the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) Board membership are set out in the Company's Annual Report and Financial Statements 1997–98, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. Non-executive Board members receive no remuneration. Details of remuneration applicable to the executive Board members (the Chief Executive, the Managing Director and the Finance Director) are in the Annual Report.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the cost of legal advice given to the NMEC. [68176]

  Janet Anderson
  As is normal practice across the public and private sector, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) retains legal advisors and, as necessary, seeks specialist legal advice in order to satisfy itself that its legal duties and obligations are met in all aspects of the Millennium Experience project. As is also normal practice, the company has its own in-house legal team. Details of the contractual arrangements with legal advisors and payments made are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the contract for legal advice to the NMEC was awarded to Sharpe Pritchard and Co.; and what tendering procedure was used. [68177]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) does not have a contract with Sharpe Pritchard for legal advice. Sharpe Pritchard are contacted as a parliamentary reporting service providing relevant extracts to the NMEC from the Official Report.

  Millennium Dome (Waste)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements have been made for the disposal of waste generated by the Millennium Exhibition at Greenwich. [64650]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 1 February 1999, Official Report,column 455.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of Lord Rothschild's statement at the time of the publication of the 1996–97 Annual Report of the Heritage Lottery Fund relating to the reduction of lottery funding for purposes related to heritage. [69161]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  When the Lottery was launched in 1994, the good causes were expected to receive around £9 billion in total over the first licence period, that is 78
  £1.8 billion for each of the five good causes, including heritage. When we raised that forecast to £10 billion, we were able to provide £1 billion for the New Opportunities Fund without affecting the expectations of the original good causes. We now expect the Lottery to raise £10.6 billion for the good causes over the licence period, which ends in September 2001. £200 million of the extra £600 million will be shared equally between the heritage, the arts, sport and charities, with the balance of £400 million going to the New Opportunities Fund. The Heritage Lottery Fund can therefore now count on receiving at least £1.85 billion in total during the present licence.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 February that, following the reduction in the percentage income shares to the heritage, the arts, sport and charities from 16⅔ per cent. to 5 per cent. for thirteen weeks from 15 February in order to provide the extra revenue for the New Opportunities Fund, each is guaranteed to receive 16⅔ per cent. for the remainder of the licence period. This is in addition to the undertaking we have already given that these good causes are each gauranteed 16⅔ per cent. of Lottery proceeds after the current licence expires. These guarantees give the Heritage Lottery Fund a clear financial framework within which to plan its future spending and operate the new strategic approach to Lottery distribution we have introduced.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [69077]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Neither I nor any of my Ministers have made use either of an RAF aircraft or of a chartered aircraft.

  Holidays
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many holidays were taken in the United Kingdom by British residents in(a) 1994 and (b) 1998. [69392]

  Janet Anderson
  United Kingdom residents took an estimated 62.8 million holidays in the United Kingdom in 1994, according to the UK Tourism Survey. Short holiday trips, of 1–3 nights, accounted for fractionally over 50 per cent. of all holidays. The latest figures currently available from this annual survey are for 1997. They show an estimated 70.8 million holidays in the UK, 13 per cent. more than in 1994. Short holiday trips accounted for 53 per cent. of all UK holidays in 1997. The number of short holidays taken in the UK increased by 18 per cent. between 1994 and 1997.

  Figures for 1998 are expected to be available in late Spring.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government
  79
  have taken in the past two weeks to draw to the Spanish Government's attention their obligations under the European Community treaties in respect of the border with Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [69700]

  Ms Quin
  The Ambassador in Madrid has raised this issue on several occasions recently with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We have made it clear to the Spanish authorities that we look to them to allow movement across the border in conformity with EU obligations.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military equipment has been licensed for export by UK companies to Indonesia since 1 May 1997. [69491]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government are soon to publish their Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. They will list by country of destination the number of export licences issued in each equipment category, and give details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has evaluated on the alleged use against civilians of arms exported from the UK to Indonesia. [69760]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No formal mechanisms exist at present for systematically monitoring the use of British defence equipment once it has been exported. We will not however issue licences for the export of equipment where we judge there is a clearly identifiable risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Orders in Council relating to arms embargoes circulated to British embassies and high commissions by his Department between 1979 and 1997. [69922]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  From 1979 to 1997, it was not normal practice to circulate copies of Orders in Council or summaries of them to British Embassies and High Commissions. It was the practice instead to circulate copies of the relevant UN Resolutions. Since July 1998 all FCO Departments and Posts overseas and all Whitehall Departments have been sent details of the scope and provisions of all new sanctions, including arms embargoes.

  Burma
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to the participation of representatives of the Government of Myanmar in European Union-ASEAN discussions. [69483]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As an ASEAN member, Burma is entitled to be represented at EU/ASEAN bloc-to-bloc meetings. The next meeting, of Foreign Ministers, is due to take place in March in Berlin. The UK believes that the level of Burmese representation should be in keeping with the spirit of the EU Common Position, which reflects 80
  the EU's concern about the appalling human rights and political situation in Burma. We continue to make this position clear to our EU Partners.

  Arms Control
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position was taken by the United Kingdom representatives at the General Affairs Council on 25 and 26 January on proposals tabled by the German Government on arms control. [69482]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As there was no prospect of consensus on the Presidency's proposal concerning the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, the UK did not intervene. Our position is that this issue should be considered during the annual review of the operation of the Code, which is due to take place towards the end of the German Presidency, in the light of experience.

  Georgia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to mark the accession of Georgia to full membership of the Council of Europe. [69260]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Georgia has yet formally to accede to the Council of Europe (CoE).

  The CoE Committee of Ministers is to consider the recommendation of the CoE Parliamentary Assembly that Georgia be invited to become a full member of the organisation, but with the requirement that Georgia meets certain specified commitments with stipulated timescales.

  We shall support a decision endorsing the Assembly's recommendations.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions of the Pakistan Government to limit the press freedom of the Daily Jang newspaper. [69894]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are following developments in this case. I expect to raise the issue with the Minister of Information when I visit Pakistan on 8–10 February.

  Angola
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to work through the UN to ensure that Dr Jonas Savimbi is prosecuted for crimes against humanity. [69386]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The major responsibility for the break down of the peace process lies with Jonas Savimbi, but military action is not going to result in an acceptable resolution of the present crisis. The only way forward is for both the warring parties to return to the negotiating table. I would not wish to take any measures which might undermine prospects for a negotiated settlement.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement in respect of the Government's policy towards UNITA. [69385]
  81
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our policy is to urge UNITA to fulfil its obligations under the Lusaka Protocol. It is their failure to do so which has led to the breakdown in the peace process and for which Mr. Savimbi must bear the main responsibility. But military action is not going to result in an acceptable solution of the present crisis. The only way forward is for both warring parties to return to the negotiating table. UN sanctions against UNITA were designed to encourage UNITA to fulfil its peace process obligations. The Government enforce all UN sanctions.

  UN 661 Sanctions Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the published minutes of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 Sanctions Committee. [69398]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Security Council Committee established by resolution 661(1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait does not publish minutes of its meetings. It does however produce an annual report.

  I have arranged for copies of the latest of these reports to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the delay in publishing the first annual report on arms exports. [69399]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We regret the delay in publishing the first annual report on the UK's strategic export controls, and will publish the report as soon as possible.

  Putting the report together has involved the careful checking and compilation of a vast amount of data. This process has been particularly time-consuming because the databases of the departments concerned which were in place during the period covered by the annual report were not designed to produce the necessary information. In addition, it became clear at a late stage of the process that there were significant inaccuracies in HM Customs and Excise data relating to the value of arms exports to individual countries, and this has had to be re-checked.

  Private Military Companies
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce regulation of private military companies in the United Kingdom. [69394]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are still examining this issue. No final decision has yet been taken.

  EU Funds
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amounts paid by the EU to(a) Republic of Ireland, (b) Spain, (c) Portugal and (d) Greece in 1997–98. [69164]

  Ms Quin
  The EC budget year is the calendar year. According to the European Commission's report "Financing of the European Union" COM(98) 560,82
  deposited in the House Library on 26 October 1998 (Batch list 121), expenditures from the EC budget on these Member States in 1997 were:

  (a) Republic of Ireland: £6,071 million (8,605.8 mecu)

  (b) Spain: £7,974 million (11,303.6 mecu)

  (c) Portugal: £2,680 million (3,799.6 mecu)

  (d) Greece: £3,915 million (5,550.2 mecu).

  Ministerial Visits (Central Europe)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from United Kingdom embassies about the numbers and occasions of visits by ministers from other EU states who are comparable in rank to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovenia and (e) Estonia, since each of these countries submitted their formal applications for membership of the EU. [67060]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: British Embassies in Central Europe keep the FCO regularly informed of significant events in their host countries. However we do not keep detailed records of all visits by trade and other Ministers from EU countries to Central Europe. To provide a full answer to the question would necessitate disproportionate cost. I am listing details of those visits for which we do hold records.

  The FCO and the DTI recognise the importance of the trade relationship with EU applicant states in Central Europe. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are priority markets under the joint DTI/FCO Export Forum Initiative. The DTI and FCO collaborate in export and investment promotion activities in all of these countries, including ministerial contact.

  Poland—Visits by other EU member state trade ministers (since 5 April 1994)

  M. Dondoux, French Minister of Trade, March 1998

  Hungary—Visits by other EU member state trade ministers (since 31 March 1994)

  No records

  Czech Republic—Visits by other EU member state trade ministers (since 17 January 1996)

  No records

  Slovenia—Visits by other EU member state trade ministers (since 10 June 1996)

  Ms Anneke van Dok van Weele, Netherlands Minister of Foreign Trade, September 1996

  Mr. Bjoern von Sydow, Swedish Trade Minister, September 1996

  Mr. Johan Ole Norrback, Finnish Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Trade, October 1997

  Mr. Piero Fassino, Italian Minister of Foreign Trade, January 1999

  Estonia—Visits by other EU member state trade ministers (since 24 November 1995)

  Mr. Anders Sundstrom, Swedish Minister of Industry and Commerce, May 1997

  Mr. Leif Pagrotsky, Swedish Minister for Trade, October 1997

  Mr. Antti Kalljomaki, Finnish Minister for Trade and Industry, December 1997

  Mr. Leif Pagrotsky, Swedish Minister for Trade, May 1998.

  83

  Swathi Pankhania
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received concerning the case of Swathi Pankhania, born on 18 March 1973, currently being dealt with in Bombay; [67234]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999, Official Report, column 147, concerning Swathi Pankhania of Leicester, Ref S787788, when the decision will be made in this case. [69314]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The position on this case was set out in a letter dated 25 January 1999 from the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit to my hon. Friend. We expect medical formalities to be completed around the middle of February.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. [67967]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is important that all countries who agreed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change sign and ratify it, but it is particularly important that the US, as the world's largest emitter, should do so. Under the chairmanship of the UK, all G8 countries agreed last spring to sign the Protocol within a year; and the US did so during the Buenos Aires Climate Change Conference in November. The UK continues to play a significant role in international negotiations to finalise the rules on how the Protocol will operate, with the aim of promoting early ratification by all countries, including the US.

  I met Vice-President Al Gore on January 30, and climate change was among the matters discussed.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assistance the British Embassy in Bangkok gave in arranging to charter a helicopter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his attendance at the ASEM conference in September 1997; and what the cost was of the charter; [68709]

  (2) what assistance Diplomatic posts in South Africa gave in arranging a charter flight for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September 1997 to Bangkok from (a) South Africa and (b) Madagascar; and what the cost was of the flight. [68708]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I am giving today to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), Official Report, column 31.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Safety Radio Communication Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has given to 84
  local fire authorities concerning participation of the Fire Service in the Public Safety Radio Communication Project. [69007]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A letter was sent to Chief Fire Officers on 11 January 1999 which advised them on developments in the strategy for replacing fire service main scheme radio systems, including possible take-up of the Public Safety Radio Communications project. The proposals had previously been agreed by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its meeting on 17 November 1998. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total female prison population by category and in total(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest available date. [69219]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is available for the last day of the month and is given for appropriate month ends in the table.

  Population of females in prisons in England and Wales on 30 April 1997 and 31 December 1998, by type of custody

  Type of custody

  30 April 1997

  31 December 1998

  Untried

  387

  444

  Convicted unsentenced

  205

  237

  Sentenced:

  Young offenders

  249

  310

  Adults

  1,734

  2,051

  Fine defaulters

  9

  3

  Non-criminal prisoners

  26

  21

  Total

  2,610

  3,066

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his current planning projections of the future female prison population. [69174]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/99 "Projections of long-term trends in the prison population to 2006" published on 20 January 1999. The Bulletin details three alternative scenarios which project a total female prison population by 2006 of:

  a) 3,900 (if custody rates increase by 1 per cent. and sentence lengths increase annually by 2 per cent.)

  b) 3,600 (if custody rates increase by 1 per cent. but sentence lengths remain at 1998 levels)

  c) 3,100 (if custody rates and sentence lengths remain at 1998 levels).

  These projections take into account the effect of Home Detention Curfew which came into effect on 28 January 1999. A copy of the bulletin which shows in table 1 the projected female prison population under each scenario by year is available in the Library and on the Home Office Web Site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were sentenced to imprisonment for offences involving possession, supply or trafficking of controlled drugs in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [69176]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is given in the table.
  85

  Receptions of sentenced females into prisons in England and Wales by principal drugs offence, 1992–1998

  Offence

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  Unlawful supply

  63

  70

  72

  136

  144

  186

  227

  Possession with intent

  42

  55

  61

  83

  142

  223

  276

  Possession

  41

  38

  40

  54

  95

  120

  103

  Unlawful import/export

  128

  132

  112

  122

  187

  210

  216

  Other drug offences

  2

  3

  2

  9

  7

  11

  12

  Total

  276

  298

  287

  404

  575

  750

  834

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were held in prison in each member state of the European Union(a) in absolute terms and (b) in proportion to the size of their population for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [69177]

  Female prison population1 within the European Union, by member state, 1992 to 1997

  Number of female

  rate per 100,000 general female

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  England and Wales2,3

  1,577

  1,561

  1,811

  1,979

  2,262

  2,675

  6

  6

  7

  7

  9

  10

  Northern Ireland

  47

  36

  42

  30

  32

  30

  6

  4

  5

  4

  4

  4

  Scotland2

  158

  171

  177

  175

  189

  184

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Austria4

  338

  341

  335

  345

  367

  413

  8

  8

  8

  8

  9

  10

  Belgium2

  404

  348

  385

  382

  378

  360

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Denmark

  179

  178

  171

  219

  191

  160

  7

  7

  6

  8

  7

  6

  Finland5

  102

  111

  112

  127

  141

  134

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  France6

  2,081

  2,100

  2,183

  2,256

  2,165

  2,166

  7

  7

  7

  8

  7

  7

  Germany

  —

  2,803

  2,712

  2,698

  2,768

  3,212

  —

  7

  6

  6

  7

  8

  Greece

  282

  300

  327

  —

  187

  209

  5

  6

  6

  —

  4

  4

  Ireland (Eire)

  30

  34

  36

  36

  48

  13

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Italy

  2,508

  2,775

  2,347

  2,172

  2,098

  2,034

  9

  9

  8

  7

  7

  7

  Luxembourg

  22

  16

  19

  29

  26

  —

  11

  8

  9

  14

  12

  —

  Netherlands7

  322

  339

  391

  —

  424

  491

  4

  4

  5

  —

  5

  6

  Portugal

  659

  795

  840

  —

  1,281

  1,470

  13

  16

  16

  —

  25

  29

  Spain8

  3,200

  4,300

  3,997

  3,865

  —

  4,002

  16

  22

  20

  19

  —

  20

  Sweden

  199

  234

  290

  330

  321

  297

  5

  5

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1 At 1 September

  2 Average population

  3 Includes prisoners held in police cells

  4 At 31 August

  5 At 1 January

  6 Metropolitan and overseas departments

  7 At 30 September

  8 At 31 December

  Source:

  Calculated from data in the Council of Europe S. PACE using population estimates supplied by the ONS.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the population of female prisoners in each of the past 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the figures for each of the next five years. [69262]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average female prison population (up to 1997) is published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 1.4 of the 1997 edition), a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the projected female prison population by alternative scenarios is given in table 1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/99 "Projections of long term trends in the prison population to 2006" published on 20 January 1999, a copy of which is in the Library and on the Home Office Web Site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.
  86
  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information is given in the table. It should be noted, however, that comparisons between penal statistics from different countries may be misleading due to differences in criminal justice systems, the types of sanctions available to the judicial authorities and the length of prison sentences imposed by the courts and served by offenders.

  Information on the average female prison population in England and Wales is given in the table. The figures are for the central scenario—higher and lower scenarios are possible.

  Average population of females in prisons in England and Wales, 1989–1998 (actual) and 1999–2004 (projected)

  Year

  Average population (Actual)

  Year

  Average population (Projected)

  1989

  1,767

  1999

  3,200

  1990

  1,597

  2000

  3,400

  1991

  1,561

  2001

  3,500

  1992

  1,577

  2002

  3,500

  1993

  1,561

  2003

  3,500

  1994

  1,811

  2004

  3,500

  1995

  1,979

  —

  —

  1996

  2,262

  —

  —

  1997

  2,675

  —

  —

  1998

  3,105

  —

  —

  87

  Animals Act 1911
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation amending the Animals Act 1911 to make it an offence to keep an animal in a situation where it was likely to be caused suffering. [69387]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The law places the responsibility for taking care of animals on their owners or keepers, who may not cause them harm, intentionally or through neglect. Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal.

  Since the mistreatment of animals can take many forms, the 1911 Act has been widely drawn to apply to any situation of unnecessary suffering. There are no plans at present to amend the 1911 Act to make it an offence of being likely to cause unnecessary suffering.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on reducing the supply of illegal drugs in prisons. [69179]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to the reduction of illegal drug use in prison. Our strategy is set out in "Tackling Drugs in Prison", which we launched in May 1998. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Prison Service will receive an extra £76 million over the next three financial years for its implementation.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to prisons were found to be in possession of illegal drugs in each of the last three years for which figures are available; how many were referred to the police; what action was taken in respect of those not referred to the police; and if he will make a statement. [68958]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All visitors to prisons who are found in possession of illegal drugs are referred to the police.

  In the last three years, the numbers of visitors arrested in connection with possible drug related offences are:

  1996: 1,312

  1997: 1,176

  1998: 1,086.

  The Prison Service does not record what action was subsequently taken by the police.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday 25 January, Official Report, column 80, that he is to provide Governors with a new power to ban visitors for a specified time if they are caught bringing drugs into United Kingdom prisons.

  Racist Attacks (Greater Manchester)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent figures for recorded racist attacks in Greater Manchester; and what measures he proposes to deal with this kind of crime. [69173]
  88
  Mr. Boateng
  There were 624 recorded racial incidents in Greater Manchester in 1997–98. These are incidents recorded under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident."Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  Incidents included here are wider than the normal definition of a crime in the crime statistics and include low level harassment.

  A breakdown of the number of incidents recorded by the police in each police area in 1997–98 is given in the Home Office publication "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System" 1998, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced new statutory offences for racial crime which came into force on 30 September 1998. These correspond to the existing main offences which deal with violence against the person (except those which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment), criminal damage and offences of harassment. They include a test that there was either racial motivation or any aggravating evidence or racial hostility in connection with the offence and provide the courts with higher maximum penalties to reflect the racial aspect to the crime.

  The introduction of specific racial offences will send out a strong message to society that such crime is unacceptable and will be dealt with very seriously by the courts.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the role of the voluntary sector in addressing social exclusion. [69160]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government regard partnership with voluntary and community organisations as crucial in combating social exclusion. Many such organisations have unique experience and knowledge of areas of need and opportunity. The voluntary sector is represented on the membership of seventeen of the eighteen Policy Action Teams set up following the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Bringing Britain Together".

  Trans-sexual Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the planned timetable for the drawing up of guidelines and consultation on the treatment of transsexual prisoners; what consultation is planned with non-convicted transsexual persons; who is to be responsible for drawing up of the guidelines; and if the guidelines will cover prisoners on remand; [69230]

  (2) what guidelines are provided to prison service clinicians in respect of the treatment of transsexual prisoners. [69231]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service's Directorate of Health care is currently drawing up guidelines for the care, management and treatment of prisoners with gender dysphoria. The Directorate expects to begin consultation on a second draft of these guidelines
  89
  shortly and will set a timetable for their completion and issue in the light of the outcome. The Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism and the Gender and Sexuality Alliance, both of which have previously contributed to the development of these guidelines, will be amongst those invited to comment on the second draft. The guidelines, which will refer to both convicted and unconvicted prisoners, will supersede the current arrangements whereby prison staff seek advice from the Directorate of Health Care as required.

  Swathi Pankhania
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Leicester, East dated 7 December 1998 and 25 January 1999, concerning Swathi Pankhania of Rushey Mead, Leicester (Home Office ref. S787788). [69229]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A reply will be sent to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Electronic Warfare
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Cabinet Committees are currently responsible for considering information warfare issues; and if that will change following his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 75. [68315]

  Mr. Straw
  As I said in my answer of 25 January 1999, I will be taking lead responsibility for the new work on protection against electronic attack and will consult my Ministerial colleagues as required. There are no immediate plans to change the Terms of Reference of any Cabinet Committee.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs(a) to central Government and (b) to local authorities in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, under interim funding arrangements for asylum seekers, in respect of (1) single adults, (2) families and (3) unaccompanied children. [68578]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum seekers who claim asylum at their port of entry may be entitled to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Other asylum seekers may seek support from local authority social services departments. Local authorities are able to reclaim some of their expenditure by way of special grant from central government.

  The information is not available in the form requested. But the information which is available was contained in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his reply to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 4 February 1999, Official Report, column 726.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many machine action weapons, shotguns and other firearms are currently held by United Kingdom police forces; what percentage of police personnel are trained in the use of each category of weapon; what plans are in place to increase the stock 90
  of such weapons by category, by (a) purchase, (b) lease hire or loan and (c) other arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [68946]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of firearms held by police forces in England and Wales is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of firearms held by police forces in Scotland is as follows:

  Police force

  Handgun

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Other

  Total

  Central Scotland

  41

  4

  9

  16

  70

  Dumfries and Galloway

  45

  4

  13

  22

  84

  Fife

  42

  4

  6

  10

  62

  Grampian

  72

  13

  8

  31

  124

  Lothian and Borders

  123

  14

  14

  29

  180

  Northern

  89

  15

  30

  20

  154

  Strathclyde

  256

  14

  34

  54

  358

  Tayside

  87

  19

  32

  21

  159

  Total

  755

  87

  146

  203

  1,191

  The number of firearms held by the Royal Ulster Constabulary is as follows:

  Firearms

  Number

  Pistols/Revolvers

  15,016

  Machine action weapons

  3,457

  Shotguns

  31

  Sniper rifles

  44

  Arrangements for the purchase and storage of firearms are operational matters for chief officers of police. I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that there are no plans for any significant increase in the number of weapons held in England and Wales. Similarly, there are no plans to increase the stocks in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Based on the most recently available figures, 5.3 per cent. of police officers in England and Wales and 4.63 per cent. of police officers in Scotland are trained in the use of firearms. This reflects the policy of using a small number of highly trained officers for firearms operations. Training reflects the range of weapons officers may need to use in dealing with firearms incidents.

  All Royal Ulster Constabulary officers are trained in the use of handguns, and approximately 50 per cent. in the use of semi-automatic firearms. Shotgun and sniper rifle training involves very small numbers of officers.

  Deportations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons(a) were deported and (b) voluntarily left the UK pending deportation in January. [68795]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on removals and voluntary departures resulting from deportation action is not yet available for January 1999.

  Table 5.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, First Half 1998", a copy of which is in the Library,

  91
  contains information on the numbers of persons who were removed or departed voluntarily as a result of deportation action in 1995, 1996, 1997 and the first half of 1998.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 546–47, on deportation orders, in respect of how many deportation orders made in (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 deportation was not enforced because it was no longer appropriate. [69918]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Some 160 of the deportation orders made in 1994 have not been enforced on the ground that deportation is no longer appropriate. The figures for 1995 and 1996 are 170 and 140 respectively.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 546–47, on deportation orders, if he will make it his policy to collect easily accessible information on the number of persons in custody or otherwise detained who are the subject of deportation action; and if he will make a statement. [69919]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is currently collected on people who are detained under Immigration Act powers in prisons and detention centres. This will include people refused entry on arrival at a port and illegal entrants, as well as those who are subject to deportation action. However, those subject to deportation are not identified separately; and the figures do not include people still completing custodial sentences who are subject to deportation action, as the latter are not held under Immigration Act powers.

  There is no pressing operational need to collect centrally separate information about the number of people in prison custody or otherwise detained who are subject to deportation action. However, the Immigration Service is currently in discussions with the Prison Service about the collection of data on foreign nationals in prison and will consider the desirability of including details of prisoners subject to deportation when new information systems are introduced.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is the policy of the Government that people serving prison sentences and who are the subject of deportation action should be released from custody prior to deportation. [69845]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A prisoner is expected to complete his sentence before being deported.

  It is our practice to complete the necessary administrative action associated with deportation before the person concerned has completed his sentence so that deportation can take place on release from custody.

  Where it is not possible to do this for legal reasons such as an outstanding appeal, or where the person is not immediately removable for other reasons, consideration is given to whether they should be detained under Immigration Act powers or whether they can be granted temporary release.

  In deciding whether or not a particular individual should be detained, we apply the same criteria as are applied in other immigration cases. These criteria were set
  92
  out in Chapter 12 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", which was published last year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prison governors are informed of which prisoners in their charge are the subject of deportation action. [69846]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Governors should be aware of those prisoners who have been recommended for deportation by a court. In other cases, the police are required to notify the Immigration and Nationality Directorate where someone has been convicted of an offence of violence against the person, a drugs offence or an immigration offence or any other offence where a custodial sentence of 12 months or more has been imposed. Where it is decided to initiate deportation action in those cases, the Governor is asked to serve the notice informing the prisoner that the Secretary of State intends to deport him. The Governor will also be informed of cases where a deportation order has already been made—on other grounds—against someone who is serving a custodial sentence.

  Immigration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 131, on immigration, if he will make it his policy to collect information on the number of cases in which he exercises his discretion to grant leave to remain in the United Kingdom to foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom on the grounds of compassionate circumstances. [69917]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. There is no operational need to collect these data so the public expense of collecting the information could not be justified.

  Circuses (Winter Quarters)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 75, what plans he has to extend animal welfare legislation to circus animals in winter quarters. [69494]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Circus animals in winter quarters are protected by the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which it is a criminal offence to ill-treat or cause any unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal, and by the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. We are still studying the all party group for animal welfare's report on circus animals.

  Police (Millennium Celebrations)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he has made available to the Metropolitan Police to ensure public safety and public order and to prevent crime at the time of the Millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement. [69609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The need to make adequate provision for both planned and contingency policing related to the Millennium celebrations in London is being taken fully into account in budget estimates for the
  93
  Metropolitan Police, for 1999–2000, which the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in consultation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, is preparing for the Home Secretary's approval.

  My right hon. Friend announced, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on 2 December 1998, Official Report, columns 194–97, that the Metropolitan Police should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions which, in the next financial year, include policing related to Millennium celebrations; that he proposes that a special payment should therefore be made to the Metropolitan Police over and above that available through the principal police grant formula; and that he has set the amount of this special payment at £176 million. My right hon. Friend announced a funding allocation of £1,744 million for the Metropolitan Police for 1999–2000 in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), Official Report, columns 618–19. The final grant allocations for 1999–2000 as set out in the Police Grant Report, including the additional special payment of £176 million for the Metropolitan Police, were approved by the House on 4 February.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules govern the treatment of circus animals; how he monitors the treatment of such animals; and if he will make a statement. [69499]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 761.

  Home Detention Curfew Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released on home detention curfew on or since 28 January have been returned to custody to date(a) as a result of offending and (b) for other reasons. [70021]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As of 7 February, 392 prisoners have been made subject to Home Detention Curfew. Four of these prisoners have had their licences revoked and been recalled to prison. Two of these recalls were as a result of a failure to comply with the curfew conditions. One recall was due to an inability to monitor the prisoner's whereabouts and one was in order to protect the public from serious harm. One of the two prisoners recalled for failing to comply with the curfew condition has been charged with a further offence.

  Provisional Police Grants
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the provisional police grants announced in December 1998. [69204]

  Mr. Boateng
  I received 40 written representation on the provisional police grant allocations announced on 2 December 1998. I also met representatives from seven police authorities.
  94

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the results of the inquiry into the events at Holloway Prison on 13 August 1998. [69259]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An internal Prison Service inquiry into a series of incidents connected to the non-issue of medication to prisoners at Holloway prison has been completed. The Prison Service does not normally publish the findings of internal investigation reports.

  The inquiry did, however, recognise some serious shortcomings in the management of medication which have now been addressed. The area manager and the governor are currently instituting a series of changes to ensure the effective delivery of medical services at the prison.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of people who have used(a) cannabis, (b) cocaine and (c) heroin in each of the past 10 years. [69261]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures for the percentage of people in the general population aged 16 to 59 using drugs during the last year, across England and Wales, are available on a reliable basis only from the 1994 and 1996 British Crime Surveys. These figures are given in the table. Equivalent findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey will become available when the report on the drugs component of the Survey is published later this year.

  Table: Percentage of respondents aged 16–59 in the 1994 and 1996 British Crime Survey who used drugs in the last year

  Drug

  1994

  1996

  Cannabis

  8

  9

  Cocaine

  1—

  1

  Crack

  1—

  1—

  Heroin

  1—

  1—

  1 Denotes less than 0.5 per cent.

  Committee for Infrastructure Protection
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Committee for Infrastructure Protection; and if he will list its members and terms of reference. [69559]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am not aware of the specific committee to which the hon. Member refers. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave in a reply today to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait),Official Report, column 89.

  Prisons (Passive Drug Dogs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on providing passive drug dogs in prisons; and what is the cost of keeping each dog. [69635]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The use of passive drug dogs is an important element in the Prison Service's strategy for tackling the supply of illegal drugs into prisons. There are currently 34 passive drug dogs across the service,
  95
  with around 50 additional dogs planned over the next three years. The annual cost of keeping each dog is approximately £2,087.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will legislate to place the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice on a statutory basis; and if he will include a provision banning discrimination to be exhibited in published material relating to a group of people. [68920]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The Government prefer effective self regulation overseen by the Press Complaints Commission to any form of statutory regulation.

WALES

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average cost of a hip replacement operation in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [69217]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  A figure specifically for the average cost of a hip replacements in Wales is not readily available.

  The costing system in Wales groups hip replacement procedures with other similar surgery.

  The 1997–98 average cost across all Welsh NHS Trusts for the relevant group was £3,686.

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

  SSSIs (Damage)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce measures to reduce the incidence of damage to sites of special scientific interest in Wales. [69393]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The consultation paper 'Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management' set out a number of measures that might improve the protection of SSSIs. Responses to that consultation are being considered.

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

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the prospects for sheepmeat production. [69540]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I anticipate a marked increase in sheepmeat production following a heavy carry-over of the 1998 lamb crop into the 1999 season coupled with producers retaining ewes which would otherwise have been culled out.
  96
  An industry-led Action Plan for the Lamb and Beef sectors will be published shortly, with the support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.

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

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women received cervical smear tests in the last year. [69545]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  228,994 women resident in Wales received cervical smear tests during 1997–98, of which 216,673 were in the programme's target age group of 20 to 64 years.

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

  Beef Farming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for beef farming. [69539]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The long term future of the beef sector will depend to a large degree on the outcome of the negotiations on the Agenda 2000 proposals. If the current proposals are agreed, they will provide for a significant reduction in beef prices together with an increase in direct payments to producers to compensate for the reduction in prices. This will provide the sector with the opportunity to become more market orientated and may boost consumption. It is clear that reform of the regime is essential in the light of the structural surplus that currently exists in the beef sector. In the continuing negotiations on the Agenda 2000 proposals we will be seeking to ensure that all member states play their part in bringing beef production into line with consumption. I believe that, with planning and re-valuation of their costs structure, Welsh beef producers, where they can utilise their natural advantages such as an abundance of grass, good breeding stock and a wealth of technical expertise at their disposal, should be in a position to succeed.

  An industry-led Action Plan for the Lamb and Beef sectors will be published shortly, with the support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.

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

  Dairy Producers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to assist dairy producers in Wales. [69538]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The long term future of the dairy sector will depend to a large degree on the outcome of the negotiations on Agenda 2000. The current legal authority for milk quota is due to expire on 31 March 2000. The commission's Agenda 2000 proposals for the reform of the CAP dairy regime include: the extension of the milk quota regime from 2000 until 2006; a 15 per cent. cut in support prices over the first four years of that period; the introduction of direct payments; dairy cow premiums, to
  97
  compensate producers for the price cuts; and an overall increase of 2 per cent. in the amount of quota at Community level.

  An industry-led Action Plan for the dairy sector will be published shortly, with the support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.

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

  Meet the People Meetings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of each of his Meet the People meetings; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) members of the public attended each meetings. [69268]

  Mr. Michael
  The information about the number of members of the public attending meetings under my Meet the People initiative is set out in the table. These meetings give the public the opportunity to speak directly to me about the work of my Department and about devolution issues. They have shown that people in various parts of Wales are interested enough to turn out on wet winter

  Unitary authority area

  Location

  Members of the public1

  Date and time of event

  Newport

  Newport

  35

  Friday 4 December 6 p.m.

  Swansea

  Swansea

  50

  Thursday 10 December 6 p.m.

  Neath Port Talbot

  Neath

  100

  Thursday 10 December 7.30 p.m.

  Torfaen

  Croesyceiliog

  110

  Friday 11 December 3.30 p.m.

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Barry

  5

  Saturday 12 December 10.30 a.m.

  Wrexham

  Wrexham

  25

  Thursday 17 December 7.30 p.m.

  Flintshire

  Mold

  14

  Friday 18 December 6.30 p.m.

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Pontypridd

  40

  Monday 18 January 7 p.m.

  Pembrokeshire

  Haverford west

  90

  Thursday 21 January 7 p.m.

  Blaenau Gwent

  Ebbw Vale

  55

  Friday 22 January 7 p.m.

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Merthyr Tydfil

  20

  Thursday 28 January 7 p.m.

  Caerphilly

  Pontllanfraith

  55

  Monday 1 February 6 p.m.

  Conwy

  Llandudno

  80

  Thursday 4 February 7 p.m.

  1 Approximate figures

  Pendy Plastics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to assist the employees of Pendy Plastics (Mainetti) of Deeside Industrial Park who are to be made redundant; and if he will make a statement. [69612]

  Mr. Hain
  As always when redundancies are announced my Department and its agencies are available to assist, where possible, those that will be affected by redundancy.

  A meeting has been arranged for Tuesday 9 February with the company's Personnel Department. This will include representatives from the WDA, Flintshire County Council and the Employment Service who will be the initial contact point for those made redundant. CELTIC will also give advice and guidance as necessary and have asked the Employment Service to ensure that all those persons made redundant are registered for training.

  The WDA is already in contact with other companies in the area who use similar manufacturing techniques, to ascertain whether they have vacancies requiring those skills, and all effort will be made to match workers to vacancies.
  98
  evenings to ask their questions. It has been clear from the questions and the discussion that those attending include people with interests in the business sector, local government, trade unions and voluntary organisations as well as members of the general public.

  I have been accompanied by my private secretary and, with the exception of the public meeting in Newport, which was the first in the series of meetings, one official has attended to make the necessary arrangements. A press officer has attended 6 meetings.

  The support provided by my Department is given as part of its normal duties and has been met from within existing resources. The only additional cost incurred by my Department up to and including 4 February, which covers the first 13 meetings, is £490. This relates almost exclusively to the provision of facilities, principally translation facilities, for the public meetings in Wrexham and Llandudno.

  The meetings have provided an excellent opportunity to discuss both all-Wales issues and matters of local concern. Even the smallest meetings have been positive and lively, with individuals raising a series of issues. I have found them both challenging and rewarding.

  Everything possible is being done to help those affected by redundancy.

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

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines are issued by his Department to(a) health and (b) education authorities in Wales in relation to the provision of services and support needed by people suffering from epilepsy; and if he will make a statement. [69671]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  On 15 June 1995, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales issued to the NHS in Wales a report on 'Health Care for People with Epilepsy in Wales' (PM(95)). This report made a number of recommendations, gives useful background information and is a resource for staff involved in purchasing and providing care for this group of patients.

  In December 1997, a Welsh Office Circular `Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs' was issued to all Directors of Education in Wales together with an accompanying Good Practice Guide. The Guide contained

  99
  a section describing the different types of epilepsy, its control and what can be done in the event of a pupil suffering a seizure.

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

  National Assembly
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings have taken place in the past three months between his Department's ministers and other Government departments on the powers of the Welsh Assembly; and what the outcome was in each case. [69257]

  Mr. Michael
  Discussion of how the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales will transfer to the Welsh Assembly and the implications for other Government Departments arises frequently in meetings within Government.

  All such discussions provide positive opportunities to prepare the ground for the transfer of powers. As far as the formal process is concerned, on 12 November last year, I published a draft of the Transfer of Functions Order which will determine the powers to be transferred to the National Assembly. Since then there have been a number of meetings at official and Ministerial level as well as comments from outside Government. These all help to inform the final draft Order which I hope will be ready to be laid later this month. I and my officials are also consulted on any Government Bill which makes provision for Wales. Some Bills confer powers directly on the Assembly.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total expenditure on primary and secondary education in Wales expressed as a proportion of the GDP of Wales; and what was the proportion in May 1997. [68609]

  Mr. Hain
  Public expenditure on primary and secondary education in Wales including early years and special education, is budgeted to be around £1,124 million in 1997–98 and £1,196 million in 1998–99. Expressed as a proportion of the 1997 GDP for Wales, the latest available, the figures are 4.1 and 4.3 per cent. respectively.

  Capital expenditure is not available in the required detail for the period in question and has therefore been excluded.

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

  Aquaculture
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if commercial aquaculture ventures are eligible for EU aquaculture development grants in Wales; and what changes to procedures relating to the availability and administration of these grants his Department has introduced for the coming year. [68840]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Commercial aquaculture projects in Wales are eligible for EU grants under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), and the administration of the FIFG scheme will be unchanged for the coming year.
  100
  I am currently considering applications for aquaculture grant against the competing priorities under other grant schemes and budgets.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Over 30 Months Scheme
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle are waiting for slaughter under the over thirty month scheme; and what is the average duration of such waits. [69489]

  Mr. Rooker
  In most areas of the country farmers are able to arrange for their OTMS animals to be slaughtered within a fortnight of booking with an abattoir or market. Abattoir slaughterings are currently averaging 17,000 animals a week in the UK, which would imply that there are only around 34,000 animals waiting to be slaughtered. An emergency service exists for the expeditious slaughter on-farm of animals which, in the opinion of a veterinary practitioner, require immediate slaughter.

  Levy Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 691, how many (a) charitable, (b) voluntary and (c) other not-for-profit food outlets are currently subject to licensing. [69996]

  Mr. Rooker
  Charitable, voluntary or other not-for-profit status is not recorded as part of the registration procedure and so details of the number of premises falling into these categories are not available. There are no licensing requirements specifically for such premises.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the sale of fruit, crisps and other snacks at break times in schools will qualify a school for paying the flat rate levy proposed in support of the Food Standards Agency. [70011]

  Mr. Rooker
  The requirement to pay the proposed levy would depend on whether the premises concerned was required to register with the local authority under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. These regulations make an exemption for premises which are concerned with the supply of beverages, or of biscuits, potato crisps, confectionery or other similar products and which are ancillary to a business (which may include a school) whose principal activity is not the sale of food.

  Badger Culling Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government's badger culling scheme has measures in place(a) to record badger population densities and (b) to estimate the proportion of badgers culled. [68606]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no validated methods for establishing badger populations from field evidence of badger activity. The Department is currently finalising contracts for research in this area, which will build on
  101
  data collected during the randomised culling trial. Culling efficiency during the trial is being monitored and will be audited, and the data will subsequently be reviewed in the light of research. However, the trial has been designed to test practical options and has such statistical power that it is not necessary to know precise culling efficiencies.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government's badger culling scheme has been audited by external auditors. [68605]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 602.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure the presence of scientific experience on the Governing Council of the Food Standards Agency. [68918]

  Mr. Rooker
  The members of the Agency will be appointed to bring together a reasonable balance of relevant skills and experience. Candidates will be selected for their ability to contribute effectively to that balance and for their personal qualities. We envisage that it will be essential for some members to have relevant scientific experience.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the Food Standards Agency has sufficient funds for scientific research. [68824]

  Mr. Rooker
  Budgets for food safety and standards research currently funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and relevant research funded by other Departments, including the Department of Health, will be transferred to the Agency at the outset. It will be for the Agency to decide priorities for expenditure within the overall funds available to it.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to monitor the competence of the inspectorate attached to the Food Standards Agency and the adequacy of its staff resources. [68925]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Agency will have direct responsibility for meat hygiene inspection through the Meat Hygiene Service (which will be a separate executive arm of the proposed Agency), and for dairy hygiene inspections carried out by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. Other food hygiene inspections will continue to be the responsibility of local authorities. The draft Food Standards Bill provides powers for the Agency to monitor the performance of enforcement activities, including its own enforcement authorities, and to report on its conclusions. In monitoring enforcement performance, the Agency would be expected to have regard to the adequacy of the relevant staff resources.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 304, on intervention stocks, for what reason the information is not available. [68965]
  102
  Mr. Rooker
  Member States participating in the EU Surplus Food Scheme are obliged to notify the European Commission of the eligibility criteria which they apply. The UK Government announced last year that the EU Surplus Food Scheme would not be operated in the UK; thus the issue of eligibility criteria does not arise here.

  Member States who do participate in the Scheme are obliged to notify the European Commission of the eligibility criteria which they apply. The Commission does not publish this information.

  Beef (Compensation)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if new entrants into farming will be eligible for the per cow compensation for the beef sector. [69019]

  Mr. Rooker
  The £120 million aid package announced by my right hon. Friend on 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 624–40, included a £30 million increase in the funding of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (HLCAs) for cattle in 1999, an extension to the Calf Processing Aid Scheme (CPAS) until the end of March 1999, and £48.3 million in agrimonetary compensation to the suckler cow sector.

  New entrants to farming will be eligible for HLCA and CPAS payments, as long as they comply with the scheme rules, but not for agrimonetary compensation, since this was the second tranche of compensation for exchange rate revaluations affecting the beef sector during 1997 and had, under EU rules, to be paid on the basis of production in the 12 months prior to the revaluations.

  In order to respect the conditions set by the EU—and also to ensure that the money reached affected beef producers promptly—the first tranche of compensation was paid to producers who received Suckler Cow Premium in 1996. Payments under the second tranche also had to be made to beef producers who were affected by 1997 revaluations.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data he has collated on the results of the tests which have been carried out in the United Kingdom for detecting the presence of genetically modified organisms in food or food ingredients. [69289]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Enforcement of food labelling regulations, including legislation requiring the labelling of foods and food ingredients which contain genetically modified organisms, is the responsibility of Local Authorities.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the methods which are currently used in the United Kingdom for determining the origin, nature and quantity of genetically modified organisms present in food or food ingredients; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of these methods. [69288]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: There are two types of methods which have been developed for the detection of foods and food ingredients containing genetically modified material; those based on the

  103
  polymerase chain reaction which can be used to detect novel DNA, and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods which can detect novel proteins.

  These methods are currently being validated at the European level by the EC Joint Research Centre.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pursue with the European Commission the payment of subsidies to more farm animals in Italy last year than were known to exist; and what will be the financial consequences for the United Kingdom of the overpayment. [69194]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Commission auditors are responsible for checking that member states have paid CAP subsidies according to the rules and the UK fully supports the Commission in this work. Any sums wrongfully paid by member states have to be repaid by them to the EU budget.

  Farming (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the farming industry in East Sussex. [67911]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The farming industry in East Sussex is currently suffering the effects of a depressed market for beef, sheep and pigmeat and has seen farming incomes fall by 35 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 1998. In a county where over 40 per cent. of agricultural land is permanent grassland, so reflecting the importance of livestock, and where some two thirds of the land comprises the Sussex Downs and the High Weald, areas of outstanding national beauty which rely on current fanning practices, this fall in market prices is understandably of concern.

  The County benefits from Environmentally Sensitive Area status for the South Downs and farmers can seek financial assistance for work to enhance the environment under Ministry schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, the Habitat Scheme, the Farm Woodland Scheme and the Organic Aid Scheme. Payments to the farming industry in East Sussex in 1997 under MAFF schemes totalled around £16.2 million. Figures are not currently available for 1998.

  The Government recognise the importance of a sustainable, competitive and profitable industry and an attractive and viable countryside for the future. My noble Friend Lord Donoughue visited East Sussex on 3 February to listen to the views of representatives of farming interests.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in respect of each local education authority in England the underlying increase in the provisional education standard spending assessment in 1999–2000 in cash terms, as a percentage, and as a percentage per pupil. [69844]
  104
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the information requested for the education SSAs for 1999–2000, which were finalised on 1 February. Some 85 per cent. of the total is allocated on the basis of pupil numbers with the remainder allocated on the basis of population and resident pupil numbers. This has two main effects in creating local variations around the national increases. First, the percentage increase for a given local authority will generally be higher than the national increase if its pupil numbers have risen more quickly than the national trend. Second, authorities with above average increases in pupil numbers will tend to see their overall education SSA per pupil rise by less than the national average rate because the 15 per cent. of the SSA which is not based on pupil numbers will not rise in line with the pupil numbers, and this has a consequential effect on the year-on-year change in the overall level of education SSA per pupil.

  Final Education SSAs for 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA (£ million)

  Change (£ million)

  Change (%)

  SSA per pupil change (%)

  City of London

  0.8

  0.0

  1.7

  7.7

  Camden

  87.4

  4.0

  4.8

  4.7

  Greenwich

  126.2

  6.0

  5.0

  5.4

  Hackney

  103.6

  5.0

  5.0

  5.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  63.2

  3.4

  5.7

  4.9

  Islington

  91.7

  4.2

  4.7

  5.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  40.2

  2.7

  7.1

  5.9

  Lambeth

  111.4

  6.9

  6.6

  5.0

  Lewisham

  127.5

  6.9

  5.7

  5.1

  Southwark

  124.2

  7.8

  6.7

  5.4

  Tower Hamlets

  145.6

  8.0

  5.9

  5.7

  Wandsworth

  98.2

  4.9

  5.3

  5.0

  Westminster

  66.8

  4.3

  6.9

  5.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  84.3

  5.2

  6.6

  4.5

  Barnet

  135.9

  7.4

  5.8

  4.2

  Bexley

  105.9

  6.0

  6.0

  4.1

  Brent

  123.1

  5.8

  4.9

  4.3

  Bromley

  125.8

  7.5

  6.3

  4.3

  Croydon

  140.4

  8.0

  6.1

  4.5

  Ealing

  129.4

  7.0

  5.7

  4.5

  Enfield

  139.3

  8.0

  6.1

  4.4

  Haringey

  110.6

  7.5

  7.2

  4.6

  Harrow

  81.1

  3.5

  4.5

  4.6

  Havering

  99.0

  4.5

  4.8

  4.3

  Hillingdon

  107.9

  5.6

  5.5

  4.3

  Hounslow

  107.1

  5.4

  5.3

  4.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  53.4

  2.7

  5.2

  4.7

  Merton

  66.3

  3.2

  5.1

  4.6

  Newham

  156.6

  10.3

  7.0

  4.3

  Redbridge

  118.4

  8.6

  7.9

  3.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  52.5

  2.8

  5.7

  4.2

  Sutton

  78.8

  4.6

  6.2

  4.2

  Waltham Forest

  111.1

  7.0

  6.8

  4.1

  Birmingham

  506.0

  23.3

  4.8

  5.3

  Coventry

  136.1

  6.1

  4.7

  5.2

  Dudley

  120.4

  6.5

  5.7

  5.1

  Sandwell

  136.0

  6.4

  4.9

  5.2

  Solihull

  88.0

  5.5

  6.7

  4.9

  Walsall

  124.6

  6.8

  5.8

  5.0

  Wolverhampton

  111.9

  5.7

  5.4

  5.0

  Knowsley

  85.2

  4.0

  5.0

  5.3

  Liverpool

  238.3

  9.3

  4.1

  5.6

  St. Helens

  76.5

  3.0

  4.1

  4.9

  Sefton

  122.2

  6.1

  5.2

  4.9

  Wirral

  148.7

  6.8

  4.8

  4.9

  Bolton

  117.5

  6.0

  5.4

  5.2

  Bury

  71.5

  3.9

  5.8

  5.2

  Manchester

  207.7

  9.6

  4.9

  5.9

  Oldham

  108.6

  5.3

  5.1

  5.1

  Rochdale

  96.9

  5.1

  5.6

  5.1

  Salford

  95.2

  4.6

  5.1

  5.4

  105

  Final Education SSAsfor 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA (£ million)

  Change (£ million)

  Change (%)

  SSA per pupil change (%)

  Stockport

  104.4

  5.5

  5.5

  5.4

  Tameside

  95.6

  5.4

  6.0

  5.3

  Trafford

  91.1

  6.5

  7.7

  5.7

  Wigan

  125.3

  6.3

  5.3

  5.2

  Barnsley

  87.4

  4.4

  5.3

  5.3

  Doncaster

  136.1

  6.2

  4.7

  5.2

  Rotherham

  116.1

  6.6

  6.0

  4.8

  Sheffield

  195.0

  11.1

  6.0

  5.1

  Bradford

  233.8

  9.5

  4.2

  5.0

  Calderdale

  88.2

  5.0

  6.0

  4.9

  Kirklees

  164.3

  8.3

  5.3

  5.0

  Leeds

  292.4

  14.8

  5.3

  5.2

  Wakefield

  129.0

  6.5

  5.3

  5.1

  Gateshead

  78.3

  3.4

  4.6

  5.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  111.0

  5.0

  4.7

  5.0

  North Tyneside

  77.6

  3.4

  4.6

  5.0

  South Tyneside

  68.8

  3.4

  5.1

  5.2

  Sunderland

  129.1

  5.7

  4.6

  5.3

  Isles of Scilly

  1.2

  0.0

  0.8

  7.9

  Cambridgeshire

  190.0

  11.3

  6.3

  5.2

  Cheshire

  263.8

  13.8

  5.5

  4.9

  Cornwall

  189.8

  11.1

  6.2

  5.1

  Cumbria

  195.5

  10.0

  5.4

  5.1

  Devon

  243.8

  15.9

  7.0

  4.1

  Essex

  524.1

  29.2

  5.9

  4.0

  Gloucestershire

  214.8

  12.7

  6.3

  5.0

  Herefordshire

  61.1

  4.1

  7.3

  4.3

  Worcestershire

  198.2

  10.9

  5.8

  3.9

  Hertfordshire

  446.5

  23.6

  5.6

  4.1

  Kent

  553.5

  29.7

  5.7

  4.1

  Lancashire

  468.5

  25.3

  5.7

  5.0

  Lincolnshire

  250.7

  15.3

  6.5

  4.8

  Norfolk

  286.5

  17.4

  6.5

  4.8

  Northamptonshire

  257.8

  14.8

  6.1

  5.0

  Northumberland

  129.3

  6.3

  5.2

  4.9

  Nottinghamshire

  296.0

  16.4

  5.9

  4.7

  Oxfordshire

  217.4

  10.2

  4.9

  4.2

  Shropshire

  100.8

  5.7

  6.0

  5.1

  Somerset

  175.6

  10.9

  6.6

  5.2

  Suffolk

  250.3

  14.1

  5.9

  4.8

  Surrey

  358.3

  21.1

  6.3

  4.2

  Warwickshire

  187.6

  10.1

  5.7

  5.2

  West Sussex

  269.2

  15.5

  6.1

  3.7

  North Yorkshire

  219.7

  13.6

  6.6

  4.9

  Bedfordshire

  161.0

  7.4

  4.8

  4.1

  Buckinghamshire

  193.6

  10.4

  5.7

  3.7

  Derbyshire

  272.4

  15.6

  6.1

  4.9

  Dorset

  135.3

  9.2

  7.3

  4.3

  Durham

  203.4

  9.6

  4.9

  5.1

  East Sussex

  174.3

  10.1

  6.2

  4.2

  Hampshire

  446.8

  24.9

  5.9

  4.2

  Leicestershire

  228.2

  13.6

  6.3

  4.8

  Staffordshire

  323.1

  18.2

  6.0

  5.0

  Wiltshire

  159.1

  10.1

  6.8

  4.5

  Isle of Wight

  53.2

  2.6

  5.1

  4.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  62.3

  3.3

  5.6

  4.8

  Bristol

  134.2

  7.0

  5.5

  5.4

  North Somerset

  68.0

  3.6

  5.6

  4.9

  South Gloucestershire

  93.8

  6.3

  7.2

  5.0

  Hartlepool

  42.6

  2.2

  5.4

  5.1

  Middlesbrough

  68.5

  3.1

  4.8

  5.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  66.2

  2.9

  4.6

  5.3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  82.1

  4.5

  5.8

  4.9

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  114.8

  5.2

  4.8

  5.2

  East Riding

  121.3

  7.4

  6.5

  5.0

  North East Lincolnshire

  73.0

  3.1

  4.5

  5.3

  North Lincolnshire

  65.0

  3.2

  5.2

  5.3

  York

  60.3

  3.5

  6.1

  5.3

  Luton

  87.6

  4.3

  5.2

  4.3

  Milton Keynes

  92.7

  4.3

  4.9

  3.9

  Derby

  96.8

  5.3

  5.8

  5.0

  Poole

  50.0

  3.2

  6.9

  3.9

  Bournemouth

  55.8

  3.3

  6.3

  4.2

  106

  Final Education SSAsfor 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA (£ million)

  Change (£ million)

  Change (%)

  SSA per pupil change (%)

  Darlington

  39.7

  2.2

  6.0

  5.0

  Brighton and Hove

  82.8

  4.9

  6.3

  4.0

  Portsmouth

  72.8

  4.1

  6.0

  4.3

  Southampton

  87.4

  5.0

  6.1

  4.0

  Leicester

  134.9

  5.6

  4.3

  5.1

  Rutland

  11.6

  0.4

  3.8

  5.3

  Stoke on Trent

  99.5

  3.9

  4.1

  5.2

  Bracknell Forest

  41.6

  2.0

  5.1

  3.9

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  51.1

  2.4

  4.8

  4.1

  West Berkshire

  60.9

  3.5

  6.1

  3.8

  Reading

  48.0

  2.7

  5.9

  4.2

  Slough

  59.0

  3.3

  5.9

  3.8

  Wokingham

  58.5

  3.0

  5.4

  3.9

  Peterborough

  78.9

  2.5

  3.2

  5.0

  Halton

  59.4

  2.5

  4.5

  5.5

  Warrington

  78.5

  4.6

  6.2

  4.9

  Plymouth

  107.7

  5.9

  5.8

  4.0

  Torbay

  49.9

  3.4

  7.3

  3.9

  Southend

  68.9

  3.9

  6.1

  3.9

  Thurrock

  60.5

  3.9

  6.8

  3.8

  Medway Towns

  118.0

  6.0

  5.3

  4.1

  Blackburn

  70.7

  2.7

  4.0

  5.5

  Blackpool

  52.8

  3.4

  6.9

  4.6

  Nottingham City

  116.7

  6.1

  5.5

  5.1

  The Wrekin

  66.2

  3.9

  6.2

  5.1

  Swindon

  73.3

  5.7

  8.5

  4.0

  England

  20,414.0

  1,100.0

  5.7

  4.7

  Notes

  1. The cash and percentage change figures take account of local authority changes of function and new arrangements for funding music and student support services.

  2. The education SSA per pupil figures have been derived by dividing the 1999–2000 SSA and the adjusted 1998–99 SSA by the total number of pupils aged 4 and over included in the relevant SSA calculations for that financial year.

  3. The answer spells out the main reason why variations in the percentage increase in the SSA are negatively correlated with variations in the percentage increase per pupil figures. But an LEA would also receive an above average increase in overall SSA per pupil if:

  (a)other data on population used in the calculations are increasing, relative to the national trend, while pupil numbers are static; or

  (b)the growth in pupil numbers is concentrated in the post-16/secondary sectors which attract more SSA credit than younger children because they are more expensive to educate.

  Standards Fund
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the budget for the Standards Fund for each year between 1998–99 and 2001–2002 and (b) the expenditure committed to date under the fund for each of those years. [70012]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For 1998–99 the Standards Fund budget and expenditure committed is £625.5m. For 1999–2000 Local Education Authorities have been offered allocations from a Standards Fund budget totalling £843m. The expenditure committed for 1999–2000 will be known once Authorities have responded to those offers and to allocations yet to be made. These figures include grant contributed by the Department and contributions from Local Education Authorities. The Standards Fund programme is reviewed annually and decisions about the budget for 2000–2001 will be made in due course.
  107

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many non-UK resident EU students are attending English as a foreign language courses in further education colleges in the United Kingdom. [69634]

  Mr. Mudie
  The number of non-UK resident EU students attending English as a foreign language courses in further education sector colleges in England in 1996–97 was 6,100.

  The numbers of such students studying in other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Ofsted
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the budget for Ofsted for the next three financial years. [69639]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Total provision for Ofsted is as follows:

  1999–2000: £96 million

  2000–2001: £105 million

  2001–2002: £107 million.

  Education Budgets (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the administrative costs for each of the last five years, as a percentage of the total budget, for(a) the Higher Education Funding Council, (b) the Further Education Funding Council and (c) training and enterprise councils, expressed as the national average figure, for that proportion of their responsibilities which is comparable with the responsibilities of the FEFC and the HEFC. [67670]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The information that my hon. Friend has requested is listed in the table. The three figures are not comparable because of differences in responsibilities between TECs, the HEFCE and the FEFC. Accordingly, as with HEFCE and FEFC, TEC percentages have been calculated on total administrative costs and budgets. The percentage figure for TECs is much higher than either of the others because TECs are themselves directly involved in local business support and economic development.

  Percentage

  Year

  HEFCE

  FEFC

  TECS

  1993–94

  0.37

  0.92

  12

  1994–95

  0.35

  0.82

  11

  1995–96

  0.33

  0.79

  12

  1996–97

  0.37

  0.74

  12

  1997–98

  0.29

  0.76

  13

  Grammar Schools (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grammar schools in Kent that OFSTED has identified as not performing adequately; and if he will make a statement. [69481]
  108
  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Pupils (Examinations)
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the last 10 years for(a) England and (b) Wales how many pupils (i) left state education without having been entered for any CSE/GCSE or equivalent examination and (ii) were entered for such examinations in (1) one, (2) two, (3) three, (4) four and (5) five or more subjects; and how many such entrants failed to qualify in each subject paper they sat. [69092]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested on GCSE achievements for the last ten years for England is shown in the following table. The figures are based on maintained mainstream schools (excluding special schools) and relate to all 15 year old pupils (at the start of the academic year) whether they left school or not.

  The information for schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils in maintained mainstream schools—England—1989–98

  Number attempting subjects

  Number that failed some subjects

  Percentage failing to achieve all subjects

  1988–89

  Did not attempt

  37,170

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  12,240

  3,290

  26.9

  Attempted 2 subjects

  13,460

  6,570

  48.8

  Attempted 3 subjects

  14,890

  8,160

  54.8

  Attempted 4 subjects

  21,040

  11,280

  53.6

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  471,680

  27,370

  5.8

  1989–90

  Did not attempt

  35,930

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  11,150

  2,100

  18.8

  Attempted 2 subjects

  12,700

  4,070

  32.0

  Attempted 3 subjects

  15,060

  6,500

  43.5

  Attempted 4 subjects

  17,530

  7,480

  42.7

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  444,550

  19,850

  4.5

  1990–91

  Did not attempt

  31,970

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  8,460

  1,770

  20.9

  Attempted 2 subjects

  9,670

  3,360

  34.7

  Attempted 3 subjects

  9,750

  4,380

  44.9

  Attempted 4 subjects

  14,600

  6,510

  44.6

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  434,450

  16,630

  3.8

  1991–92

  Did not attempt

  25,343

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  7,598

  3,018

  39.7

  Attempted 2 subjects

  7,393

  3,709

  50.2

  Attempted 3 subjects

  8,921

  5,047

  56.6

  Attempted 4 subjects

  11,825

  6,565

  55.5

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  426,639

  18,818

  4.4

  1992–93

  Did not attempt

  19,973

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  6,453

  2,486

  38.5

  Attempted 2 subjects

  6,228

  3,242

  52.1

  Attempted 3 subjects

  7,289

  4,342

  59.6

  Attempted 4 subjects

  9,514

  5,749

  60.4

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  417,702

  18,121

  4.3

  109

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils in maintained mainstream schools—England—1989–98

  Number attempting subjects

  Number that failed some subjects

  Percentage failing to achieve all subjects

  1993–94

  Did not attempt

  20,866

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  5,311

  2,606

  49.1

  Attempted 2 subjects

  4,519

  3,018

  66.8

  Attempted 3 subjects

  5,394

  3,598

  66.7

  Attempted 4 subjects

  7,757

  4,961

  64.0

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  433,079

  18,507

  4.3

  1994–95

  Did not attempt

  23,178

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  5,174

  2,555

  49.4

  Attempted 2 subjects

  4,082

  2,866

  70.2

  Attempted 3 subjects

  5,116

  3,576

  69.9

  Attempted 4 subjects

  7,284

  4,802

  65.9

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  473,945

  20,430

  4.3

  1995–96

  Did not attempt

  23,050

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  5,678

  2,593

  45.7

  Attempted 2 subjects

  4,093

  2,769

  67.7

  Attempted 3 subjects

  5,079

  3,314

  65.2

  Attempted 4 subjects

  7,383

  4,555

  61.7

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  488,776

  18,550

  3.8

  1996–97

  Did not attempt

  22,084

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subject

  5,346

  2,609

  48.8

  Attempted 2 subjects

  3,838

  2,550

  66.4

  Attempted 3 subjects

  4,652

  3,126

  67.2

  Attempted 4 subjects

  6,774

  4,300

  63.5

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  485,409

  18,150

  3.7

  1997–98

  Did not attempt

  18,204

  —

  —

  Attempted 1 subjects

  5,790

  2,641

  45.6

  Attempted 2 subjects

  4,715

  2,960

  62.8

  Attempted 3 subjects

  5,393

  3,021

  56.0

  Attempted 4 subjects

  7,629

  3,826

  50.2

  Attempted 5 or more subjects

  476,157

  11,682

  2.5

  Higher Education
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the last 10 years for(a) England and (b) Wales how many students entered higher education; and of these, how many (i) dropped out before completing courses and (ii) failed their final examinations. [69090]

  Mr. Mudie
  The numbers of students who entered higher education between 1988–89 and 1997–98 are shown in the table.

  HE entrants 1 to English and Welsh institutions 1988–89 to 1997–98

  Year

  English institutions 2

  Welsh institutions 2

  1988–89

  300,300

  16,200

  1989–90

  322,000

  18,000

  1990–91

  348,700

  18,900

  1991–92

  401,800

  21,700

  1992–93

  443,900

  25,300

  1993–94

  470,800

  26,100

  1994–95

  503,900

  30,500

  110

  HE entrants 1 to English and Welsh institutions 1988–89 to 1997–98

  Year

  English institutions 2

  Welsh institutions 2

  1995–96

  528,200

  33,800

  1996–97

  530,300

  33,700

  1997–98

  541,500

  33,000

  1 Includes enrolments by home and overseas students onto the first year of undergraduate courses, full-time and part time

  2 Excludes the Open University but includes all other higher education and further education institutions

  The available information on drop-out consists of UK level full-time and sandwich first degree drop-out rates published in the Departmental Report. The table shows these drop-out rates for the same 10 year period.

  UK1 full-time and sandwich first degree drop-out rates

  Percentage

  Year

  Drop-out2

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  16

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  17

  1992–93

  17

  1993–94

  317–18

  1994–95

  317–18

  1995–96

  318–19

  1996–97

  n/a

  1997–98

  n/a

  1 The institutional coverage of the drop-out rates is restricted to the former UFC universities in the UK and former polytechnics in England.

  2 Drop-out covers all those leaving degree courses because of exam failure, ill health, personal and other reasons. It includes those switching to a lower level course but it excludes students transferring between degree courses or subjects.

  3 Ranges are given because the introduction of a new data source made it difficult to measure drop-out accurately.

  Drop-out covers those who leave full-time and sandwich first degree courses for various reasons including exam failure but students who failed their final examinations are not separately identified. The drop-out rates relate to a narrower range of courses and have a different institutional coverage than the entrant figures shown.

  The Department is currently working with the higher education funding bodies in the UK to develop a method of calculating drop-out rates which can be applied to all UK higher education institutions and which takes into account the non-traditional routes that some students follow. These routes may include changing courses or institutions, repeating years or leaving higher education for a year or more before continuing their studies.

  Efficiency Gains
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to express efficiency gains as a percentage of his departmental budget; and if he will make a statement. [69631]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" (Cm 4181) which is available in the Library. This includes the Department for Education and Employment's Public Service Agreement, which describes the Department's objectives and resources and
  111
  contains our specific efficiency and performance targets, including an annual efficiency gain of 2½ per cent. in running costs.

  Nurses (Work Permits)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits issued for nurses in each of the last five years were(a) newly admitted one year work permits, (b) one year work permit renewals and (c) new work permits of over one year duration. [68577]

  Ms Hodge
  For the information requested at points(a) and (c) I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 January 1999, Official Report,column 349.

  The information requested at (b) is not available as work permit records do not link applications for renewal of a permit with the period for which the permit was originally approved.

  Remploy (North Staffordshire)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with Remploy about their factories in North Staffordshire. [69059]

  Ms Hodge
  There have been no discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Remploy about their factories in North Staffordshire.

  However, I am aware that Remploy management recently informed the workforce and unions in the three Remploy factories in Stoke, Trentham and Newcastle under Lyme of their intention to look into the feasibility of merging the three factories onto one site. I am told that two of the factories are in poor structural condition, and the third does not provide the necessary scope to expand operations. An important aim from any merger would be to provide a more modern facilities with a better working environment for the disabled employees.

  I understand that there would be full consultation with the workers and trade union representatives on each site if the project looked feasible. If there was a merger, all existing disabled employees would be guaranteed a job at the new site and help with transport as necessary.

  Early Education (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the participation rate of three-year-olds in early education in Hampshire. [69461]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. There were 559 three-year-olds in maintained nursery and primary schools in the Hampshire Local Education Authority area in January 1998. In addition, the Government have set a target to double the national participation rate of three-year-olds in free early education places to 66 per cent. by 2002, using the maintained voluntary and private sectors.

  Childcare Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the budget of the Childcare Unit. [69232]
  112
  Ms Hodge
  The Childcare unit is taking forward work on the National Childcare Strategy. Some £470 million has been allocated to support the National Childcare Strategy in England from April 1998–2003, of which £300 million comes from the Department for Education and Employment budget.

  The Childcare Unit's running cost budget for 1998–99 is £824,000.

  Teacher Assessment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many external assessors his Department estimates will be needed to implement his proposals for teacher assessment set out in the Green Paper; and how many teacher assessments an external assessor will be expected to conduct on average in an academic year; [69637]

  (2) who will be the employer of the external assessors referred to in his Department's proposals for teacher assessment set out in the recent Green Paper; and who will determine their rates of pay. [69638]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The independent external assessors will not be involved in the annual appraisal cycle, but will work with the headteacher, confirming his or her judgments made on the assessments at the new threshold and ensuring that a robust pay policy exists in the school which properly rewards good teaching. We are consulting on the role of the assessors, and will make further announcements in due course.

  Education SSA (Southampton)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the increase in the standard spending assessment for education for Southampton Education Authority in the last three years for which figures are available. [69470]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the information requested in cash and percentage terms after allowing for local authority changes of function.

  Underlying increase over previous year

  Year

  £ million

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  5.0

  6.1

  1998–99

  5.7

  7.5

  1997–98

  1.8

  2.5

  Grants (Devon)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants have been made, or are planned to be made, by his Department to Torbay Council in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [69366]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the allocations for 1998–99 to Torbay through the education standard spending assessment system, the Standards Fund, Annual Capital Guidelines, the New Deal for Schools and the money to reduce infant class sizes. Figures for 1999–2000 are also set out where announcements have already been made. Torbay's share of the money for the New Deal for Schools and the reduction of infant class sizes in 1999–2000 will be announced in due course.
  113

  £ million

  Programme

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Education SSA

  46.7

  49.9

  Standards Fund

  1.0

  2.4

  Annual Capital Guidelines

  1.3

  1.6

  New Deal for Schools

  0.6

  1—

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes (Capital)

  0.2

  1—

  1 To be announced

  Notes:

  1. The Standards Fund allocations include the LEA contribution to the programme.

  2. Annual Capital Guidelines represent loan sanction, the repayment of which generates SSA cover through the Capital Financing SSA.

  Infant Class Size Plan
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in the most recent round of bids under the infant class size plan(a) the amount bid for and (b) the amount allocated. [68810]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No allocations have yet been made. Class size plans are the subject of continuing discussions between the Department for Education and Employment and local education authorities, and thus the funding proposals associated with them may change.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to extend Government funding of nursery places to three-year-olds. [68324]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government have set a target to double the participation of three-year-olds in free early education places to 66 per cent. by 2002. In 1999–2000, the Government are making available £40 million to the 50 Local Education Authority areas with greater social need to bring forward the first 47,000 places, which will be found in all sectors and described in each Authority's Early Years Development and Childcare Plan. Over the following two years an additional £350 million will be available to expand places across all Local Education Authority areas.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines he has issued to local authorities in informing parents of three and four-year-olds of their rights of access to local provision of nursery places. [68325]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government have issued guidance to Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships about what information they should provide to parents about early education and child care. In every LEA area there is an early education place for all four-year-olds whose parents want one; expansion of places for three-year-olds will begin in 50 LEA areas from September 1999.

  Grants and Awards
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within
  114
  Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [69089]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A list of specific grants for education managed by the Department for Education and Employment for 1999–2000 which require bids from local education authorities, and the deadlines for those bids, are listed in the table. All local education authorities, including Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, are able to bid for these grants. This list will be produced as and when requested, normally grant programmes represented by these bids are revised annually.

  Grant

  Deadline

  The Standards Fund Programme (as set out in DfEE Circular 13/98)

  16 November 1998

  Protecting and expanding local education authority music services

  15 January 1999

  New Deal for Schools Phase 3

  22 January 1999

  Reduction in Class Size (Revenue)

  30 October 1998

  Reduction in Class Size (Capital)

  20 November 1998

  Independent/State School Partnerships

  5 February 1999

  Voluntary Aided Schools Capital Grants

  19 October 1998

  Education Action Zones

  16 April 1999

  Education SSA (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from Leicestershire schools about Leicestershire's education standard spending assessment for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69471]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received a number of representations from Leicestershire schools welcoming the underlying 6.3 per cent. increase in the education SSA for Leicestershire, but criticising the decision not to change the distribution formula. The Government will carry out further research over the next few years designed to improve the fairness of the current formula.

HEALTH

  Nursing Care (Funding)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide guidance to health and local authorities regarding the funding of nursing care as a result of the R-v-North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Pamela Coughlan judgment. [66383]

  Mr. Hutton
  We understand North and East Devon Health Authority have submitted an application for leave to appeal against the judgment ex parte Coughlan. We will consider the need for guidance to health and local authorities once the result of the application is known.

  Expenditure (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Executive for London plans to allocate the capital budget for 1999–2000; and on what basis. [64934]

  Mr. Denham
  Initial capital allocations for 1999–2000 will be notified to National Health Service trusts and health authorities in February. Further allocations will be made throughout the year following approval of business
  115
  cases. Allocations will be made in accordance with the priorities set out in Health Service Circular 1998/214, copies of which are available in the Library.

  ME
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of people in Britain diagnosed as suffering with chronic fatigue syndrome; and how many are receiving, or have received, specialist treatment for their condition. [67010]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the form requested. A number of definitions, disease descriptions or diagnostic criteria have been proposed to describe chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. However, there is no general agreement as to which should be used. This makes the results from studies on the prevalence of CFS/ME difficult to interpret and there is no agreement on the incidence of the illness.

  There is no information available on outpatient appointments. However, figures for CFS/ME for ordinary admissions and daycases in NHS trusts in England, for financial years 1995–96 to 1997–98 are shown in the table.

  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which sufferers from CFS/ME have access, because of the wide range of symptoms people with CFS/ME can experience they are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. Under the present system it is for health authorities and general practitioners to plan and arrange the services available to people in their care, following an assessment of their needs.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

  Year

  FCEs

  1995–96

  705

  1996–971

  600

  1997–981

  650

  1 Figures for 1996–97, 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed)

  Notes:

  1. Ordinary admissions and daycases combined—finished consultant

  episodes (FCEs) by primary diagnochronic/post viral fatigue syndrome in NHS trusts in England.

  2. ICD1 10 code used is G93.3.

  3. An FCE represents a complete period of inpatient treatment under the care of an individual hospital consultant and in about 95 per cent. of cases represent a complete spell in hospital.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the impact on voluntary sector organisations which employ nurses of the proposed public sector pay award for nurses. [69010]

  Mr. Denham
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions allied to medicine makes recommendations on the remuneration of groups within their remit employed in the National Health Service.
  116
  Voluntary organisations are responsible for assessing, determining and reviewing their own running costs and it would be inappropriate for the Department to become involved in that process.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which establishments have paid a regular lead to nursing staff in each year since 1970; what was the annual value of the lead; what was its purpose; and if he will make a statement. [69054]

  Mr. Denham
  National terms and conditions for nursing staff include a range of leads and allowances paid under certain circumstances. Details of all such allowances were set out in Annex 1 of our 1998 evidence to the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are available in the Library. This included information on the current national rate of payment and a brief description of conditions for payment. Further information on conditions for payment is in the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council Handbook. The value of leads and allowances each year from 1970 can be found in the Advance Letters issued to the National Health Service, copies of which have been placed in the Library. All NHS bodies which employ nurses on national contracts pay these leads and allowances, if qualifying conditions are met. Since 1994 employers have had the flexibility to increase leads and allowances locally which some NHS trusts have done. In their sixteenth report for 1999, laid before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, the Review Body recommended that London allowance and on-call and stand-by allowance should be increased and urged NHS trusts to increase relevant leads and allowances. The national rate of London allowance will increase by 15.4 per cent. from 1 April 1999 and on-call and stand-by allowance will also be increased by 19 per cent. from 1 April 1999.

  HIV-Aids
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment in 1997–98; and how much was spent on HIV/AIDS research in 1997–98 on projects wholly and partly funded by his Department. [69167]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1997–98 health authorities in England were allocated £199.3 million for the treatment and care of HIV/AIDS patients. This amount was not ring-fenced to allow health authorities flexibility to spend more or less in the light of local circumstances. The Department does not routinely collect information on the amount actually spent on HIV/AIDS services.

  In 1997–98, local authorities were provided with £13.7 million as a contribution towards the cost of community care services for people with severe HIV and AIDS. The AIDS support grant scheme operates on a 70:30 basis with local authorities providing at least 30 per cent. of the total spent. The Department also made available £1.5 million to the voluntary sector through the Section 64 general scheme to provide care, support services and information to people affected by HIV and AIDS.

  In 1997–98 health authorities in England were allocated £52.3 million which was ring-fenced for HIV Prevention activities and in the same year £4.6 million was spent on national health promotion campaigns and initiatives.
  117
  Departmental expenditure on HIV/AIDS research in 1997–98 was £117,000 for wholly funded work and around £1.275 million on partly funded research. The National Health Service research and development levy is also used to support research and development in health care settings. Project details are not held centrally and some further HIV/AIDS work may be supported by this route.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months for treatment in each year during the past 20 years. [69163]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of patients who had been waiting more than 12 months for hospital admission at the end of march and the end of September in each of the last 20 years (1978–98) is set out in the table.

  Ordinary

  Day case

  Admissions Total

  September 1978

  158,308

  —

  n/a

  March 1979

  185,195

  —

  n/a

  September 1979

  197,532

  —

  n/a

  March 1980

  196,983

  —

  n/a

  September 1980

  187,993

  —

  n/a

  March 1981

  180,774

  —

  n/a

  September 1981

  180,905

  —

  n/a

  March 1982

  175,554

  —

  n/a

  September 1982

  192,902

  —

  n/a

  March 1983

  198,546

  —

  n/a

  September 1983

  205,920

  —

  n/a

  March 1984

  194,614

  —

  n/a

  September 1984

  189,546

  —

  n/a

  March 1985

  171,197

  —

  n/a

  September 1985

  160,227

  —

  n/a

  March 1986

  161,326

  —

  n/a

  September 1986

  164,682

  —

  n/a

  March 1987

  162,273

  —

  n/a

  September 1987

  184,580

  24,860

  209,440

  March 1988

  182,161

  25,764

  207,925

  September 1988

  192,591

  27,338

  219,929

  March 1989

  193,952

  29,359

  223,311

  September 1989

  187,528

  30,588

  218,116

  March 1990

  175,777

  32,083

  207,860

  September 1990

  172,025

  30,715

  202,740

  March 1991

  145,109

  24,652

  169,761

  September 1991

  134,661

  23,860

  158,521

  March 1992

  69,000

  11,585

  80,585

  September 1992

  66,821

  13,760

  80,581

  March 1993

  45,195

  11,682

  56,877

  September 1993

  54,317

  16,705

  71,022

  March 1994

  46,404

  18,104

  64,508

  September 1994

  44,858

  17,483

  62,341

  March 1995

  21,750

  10,444

  32,194

  September 1995

  19,815

  8,123

  27,938

  March 1996

  3,686

  890

  4,576

  September 1996

  10,733

  4,260

  14,993

  March 1997

  20,732

  10,476

  31,208

  September 1997

  35,583

  22,083

  57,666

  March 1998

  40,170

  27,853

  68,023

  September 1998

  37,760

  25,720

  63,480

  Note:

  Before September 1987 figures relate to ordinary (overnight) admissions; the numbers of people waiting for day cases were not collected before this date.
  118

  Prostheses Users
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of extra contractual referrals(a) in total and (b) for prostheses users in each year since 1994–95. [69222]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on extra contractual referrals (ECRs) outturn expenditure has been collected by health authorities since 1994–95. Actual outturn expenditure figures (unaudited) for ECRs are available from 1994–95 through to 1997–98 and forecast outturn figures for 1998–99. The figures are:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  386

  1995–96

  438

  1996–97

  494

  1997–98

  530

  1998–99

  1495

  1 forecast outturn

  Information on ECRs for prostheses users is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how his Department calculates the cost-benefit ratio of out of area referrals for prostheses users whose own limb centre cannot meet their individual needs for comfort, capability and cosmesis; [69223]

  (2) how many extra contractual referrals were made (a) in total and (b) for prostheses users in each year since 1994–95. [69221]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally or validated, but it may be available at health authority level for individual health authorities.

  Disablement Services
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if disablement service users are involved in assessing the effectiveness of mechanisms to address the variations in access to, and quality of, disablement services; [69169]

  (2) what representations he has received about the effectiveness of mechanisms to address the variations in access to, and quality of, disablement services; [69153]

  (3) what mechanisms are in place to help ensure consistent access to, and the quality of, disablement services; [69170]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mechanisms to address the variations in access to, and quality of, disablement services; [69151]

  (5) how his Department assesses the effectiveness of mechanisms to address the variations in access to, and quality of, disablement services. [69152]

  Mr. Hutton
  In carrying forward the programme of modernisation set out in our White Paper "The new NHS" we are aiming to reduce inequalities in the provision of health services, including services for disabled people, raise the quality of the services provided and involve users and carers more directly in the decisions made about those services. We have received representations from emPOWER, the charity consortium of users of prosthetics, orthotics, wheelchairs and electronic assistive
  119
  technologies, about improving services for disabled people. We have discussed the issues with them and will be taking their views into account in the development of policies and services for disabled people.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will access the benefits of establishing a disablement services national service framework to help ensure consistent access to, and quality of, disablement services; [69168]

  (2) what representations he has received calling for a disablement service national service framework. [69154]

  Mr. Hutton
  A rolling programme of National Service Frameworks (NSFs) was launched in April 1998. The initial programme of work is taking forward established frameworks on cancer and paediatric intensive care and developing frameworks for coronary heart disease and

  List of Health Authority and National Health Service Trust appointments which expired in 1998 and for which no appointment had been made by 1 February 1999

  Region/Body

  Number of Chairs

  Number of Non-Executives

  Eastern

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Horizon NHS Trust

  0

  1

  West Herts Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  North West

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Manchester Health Authority

  0

  1

  Mancunian Community Health NHS Trust

  1

  1

  Oldham Hospital and Community Services NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Warrington Community NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority

  0

  1

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  0

  2

  London

  BHB Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Croydon Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  2

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Trent

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Grantham and District Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  0

  1

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  2

  South East

  East Surrey Health Authority

  0

  2

  South West

  Bath Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  1

  0

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull (Teaching) Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Total

  6

  45

  120
  mental health. There will usually be only one new NSF a year and the next two NSFs will be for older people (spring 2000) and diabetes (spring 2001).

  The charity consortium emPOWER has asked us to consider the establishment of a disablement services NSF and we discussed this idea with them at a recent meeting. Any proposal for the establishment of a disablement services NSF will be considered alongside other proposed potential subjects for an NSF.

  NHS Trusts (Appointments)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS Trust and Health Authority appointments which were not made by the due date and which remained outstanding on 1 February. [69495]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  121

  NHS Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of provision of beds in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [69742]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last September the establishment of a national inquiry into hospital beds. Once the inquiry is completed, its findings will be published.

  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to implement in full the recommendations in paragraph 2.34 and 2.35 of the report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration; and if he will make a statement. [69923]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 1 February 1999,Official Report,columns 524–25. It gave the Government's response to these two pay review body recommendations to allocate an extra £50 million a year from 2000–01 to reward individual consultants for increases in workload and intensity of work.

  Our negotiations with the profession on a new consultant contract are covering these issues. We will consider the recommendation very carefully in the context of the negotiations, and are willing to make an investment in rewards and incentives if the negotiations deliver a better service for patients. We will, therefore, decide on the level of any extra funding for future years, and how such funding might be allocated, when the negotiations are complete.

  Nurses (Working Hours)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has obtained concerning the extent to which inflexibility in working hours deters nurses from taking up employment in the National Health Service. [69636]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive ran a one-off survey in January 1998 to follow-up the 1995 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report "Qualified Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors", which identified ways in which qualified nurses who had left nursing could be attracted back into the profession. The results from this survey, which include the impact of working practices, will be released shortly.

  Viagra
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving to doctors about the prescribing of viagra; and if he will make a statement. [69501]

  Mr. Denham
  The advice about Viagra contained in Health Service Circular 1998/158 stands. We will make a further announcement following careful consideration of all comments received during the six week consultation period on drug treatments for impotence which we announced on 21 January 1999.
  122

  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of nursing staff currently employed at Eastbourne District General Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [69381]

  Mr. Denham
  The East Sussex Brighton and Hove Health Authority has a duty to ensure that the quality of care for those living in Eastbourne is satisfactory and are presently in discussion with Eastbourne District General Hospital on whether additional resources can be released in 1999–2000 to help raise the established numbers of nursing staff to average levels.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the number of(a) retail businesses and (b) catering businesses which will be liable for the proposed Food Standards Agency levy which employ (a) fewer than 10 people and (b) fewer than 100 people; [68969]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of premises proposed to be liable for the payment of the Food Standards Agency levy which have (a) fewer than 10 employees and (b) fewer than 100 employees. [68968]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  There are about 175,000 retail food premises and about 340,000 catering premises in the United Kingdom, but data on the number of people they employ are not collected centrally. However, data on premises in which food represents the majority activity of business indicate that around 80 per cent. of premises employ fewer than 10 people, and around 99 per cent. employ fewer than 100 people. The Government will be seeking updated information on the number of premises liable for the levy from local authorities as part of the consultation process.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed levy to fund the Food Standards Agency will be imposed on individual schools. [68975]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer on 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Retail and catering premises required to register under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991, as amended (and equivalent Northern Ireland regulations), including those within schools, would be required to pay the proposed levy.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Government concluded that it would be more complex and costly to operate a levy to fund the Food Standards Agency which was confined to large food retailers. [68977]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The entire food industry stands to benefit from greater consumer confidence, and therefore the Government propose to collect the levy from registered food premises at the final point of sale to the consumer. We believe that a flat rate fee, at the modest level proposed, represents a simple and transparent way of collecting the levy.
  123
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of the total yield of the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency which will come from small businesses. [68979]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  This depends on the definition of 'small business' used. Under most standard definitions, a significant majority of food premises would fall within this category.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts have been made to quantify in financial terms the benefits which the proposed Food Standards Agency will bring to its stakeholders. [68980]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The principal benefits of the Food Standards Agency will be the protection of public health and greater consumer confidence. These benefits cannot be quantified in purely financial terms.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the proposed levy to fund the Food Standards Agency will apply to premises dealing only in fresh fruit and vegetables. [68981]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government believe that the entire food industry stands to benefit from the Food Standards Agency and therefore proposes that all retail and catering premises required to register under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991, as amended (and equivalent Northern Ireland regulations), should make a contribution to the additional costs of the Agency. The only exception proposed is for premises whose only food sales are wrapped confectionery, soft drinks, crisps and similar wrapped products.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposals for a levy on businesses to pay for the proposed Food Standards Agency has been considered by the Better Regulation Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [68982]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.
  124
  The proposals have been considered by the Better Regulation Unit, which supports the Better Regulation Task Force. The views of the Better Regulation Task Force are being sought as part of the current consultation, and any comments they make will be taken into account as part of this exercise.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when considering criteria for determining exemptions to the Food Standards Agency levy which premises the Government regarded as exceptionally vulnerable to the effects of the charge. [68978]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  No distinct categories of premises were identified as exceptionally vulnerable.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the consultation draft of the Food Standards Bill provides that the levy on food premises may be different in different areas. [68976]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The provisions in the draft Bill are enabling provisions, which have been drafted so as to allow flexibility to modify the details of the levy and the level at which it is set in secondary legislation, as necessary, subject to the approval of Parliament.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the level of the proposed Food Standards Agency levy upon business will be the same in all parts of the United Kingdom. [68970]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's intention is that the levy should apply in all parts of the UK in a consistent way.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of businesses for which a flat rate levy of £90 for the Food Standards Agency would create significant problems. [68971]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  A £90 annual levy equates to a levy of £1.73 a week. I do not anticipate that businesses will find that sum difficult to afford, but we hope to get more information on this through the consultation process currently underway.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey—Took the Oath.

The Millennium Dome
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further news they have concerning the millennium dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the construction of the millennium dome at Greenwich is on time and on budget and I am confident that it will remain so. I remind noble Lords that the Millennium Experience project also incorporates an extremely impressive and comprehensive national round of activities, which are well under way. These include Tesco's SchoolNet 2000; Voices of Promise; and Children's Promise. I am pleased to report that your Lordships continue to lead the way in pledging support for the Children's Promise campaign.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of my great anxiety that he will take this great opportunity to enhance the splendid reputation that he enjoys in your Lordships' House for intelligence and common sense? Will he seize that opportunity and undertake on behalf of his colleagues to produce a document which will make clear to members of the public the Government's plans—I am sure the Government understand them—for the cost of the project, its contents, access, parking and traffic, whether generated by the
2
dome or just ordinary traffic? Perhaps the Government will also give some sympathetic thought to the inhabitants of Greenwich before they are inundated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to costs, the Government have made clear that part of the money to finance the dome comes from the lottery and the other part comes from commercial sponsorship and the face-value costs of admission to the dome. As to traffic, the Government have made clear their proposals in relation to road, rail and underground traffic. As to the people of Greenwich, I was in Greenwich last week and I can tell the House that the people of Greenwich are very pleased that the dome is there. The north Greenwich site has been decontaminated; the building of the dome has created 2, 000 jobs; and there will be jobs for 5, 000 people during the running of the experience. There will be commercial regeneration of the whole of that part of London, and people are pleased about that.
Lord Marsh: My Lards, as the project is on budget and on time, can the Minister tell us whether it is expected to break even and, if so, when? If not, what is the projected deficit, and when?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no projected deficit; it is 'forecast that the project will at least break even. During the course of the autumn, accounts will be published showing the position. The project is looked at overall, not at a particular time. In June 1997, when the Prime Minister agreed that the project should continue, he pledged that no public money would be put into the project.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I may have the most up-to-date information on the millennium dome? Is he further aware that the flight path into Heathrow today from Edinburgh passed right over the top of the millennium dome? Two hours ago I was passing over the top of the millennium dome in an aeroplane that was half full of Welsh rugby supporters. A chorus came from the Welsh rugby

3
supporters saying that the millennium dome was the most wonderful sight they had seen in a very disappointing weekend.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can understand the disappointment of the Welsh. I can also understand that they were spiritually lifted, as is everybody, to see the dome as they flew into London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord—
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that we should hear the right reverend Prelate first. I am sure that there will be plenty of time for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, afterwards.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, can the Minister lift our spirits further by putting a little flesh, if that is the right word, on the prospects for the content of the spirit zone, given that the marking of the Christian era is central to the whole celebration of the millennium and has been formative of the history and institutions of our country over many centuries?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate knows, in preparing the contents of the dome we are very concerned to appropriately mark that this celebration is a Christian one. As the right reverend Prelate also knows, the Lambeth group has approved every step that we have taken in relation to the spirit zone. It is satisfied that the zone accurately and properly represents the Christian spirit in the dome.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggested that there might be some form of government publication in regard to the millennium dome and the Government's plans for it? If the Government proceed with such a publication, will the Minister guarantee that they will pay adequate tribute to the work of the Ministers in the previous Conservative Government who were so keen on this idea?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the project was started by the previous government. We want the project for the nation and we want all political parties to support it. We are looking for success not for the party, not for the Government, but for the nation as a whole.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has just said because the project is an all-party one. I am also glad to hear that the project is on budget and on time. Does the Minister agree that the New Millennium Experience Company is doing a first-class job in keeping it on time and on budget? Does he also agree that perhaps there has been too much secrecy in the past? The idea of the noble Lord of publishing a briefing
4
paper about what is going on now and will go on in the future is a good one. Can the Minister confirm that the original criteria—which is roughly where we were, where we are at and where we are going—is still very much behind the project as it stands?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Lord in complimenting the management of NMEC, the company that is building the dome. It has done a first-class job. There is some way to go but I have every confidence that it will be able to produce in the future the same quality of management and service as it has produced in the past. The noble Lord asked about openness. I do not accept that we have not been open in the past, but we are now reaching the stage in the project where, as the dome is built and the contents become known, more and more will be known. I should say, however, that I will not tell everyone what is in the dome because I believe there has to be an element of secrecy. I want people to go down and see for themselves what is in the dome.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend has it in mind to publish the document, will he make mention of the fact that 350 acres of derelict ground have been recovered as a result of this great and important venture and that the cost forecast originally of £750 million has, by way of income which the company is gaining from sponsorship, already fallen to £491 million? Does my noble and learned friend agree that it looks as though we are going to have an event which will be a source of great pride and a great success for our country?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend said about the recovery and regeneration of the land. There was never going to be —750 million of lottery money; the figure is only —449 million. The rest is coming from commercial sponsorship and money made while the dome is there. I entirely agree that it is a first-class project for the nation.

NHS: Access to Services
2.46 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the National Health Service has in place a strategy to ensure cost-effective and professional diagnosis and delivery of services across language and culture.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. The Department of Health's strategy is to ensure that all groups have effective and equitable access to services by implementing the NHS. Modern and Dependable White Paper. This includes training staff on cultural issues; providing interpreter, advocacy and translation services; and providing information on the NHS and health issues in different languages.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that positive reply. Perhaps I may ask him in

5
particular whether the Department of Health is considering the provision of qualified interpreters such as are being introduced into the criminal justice system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the current policy is to delegate that decision down to individual trusts. In the past few years we have seen trusts employ many more interpreters and link workers. That has proved to be very successful. However, we are looking at a recent report published by the King's Fund on link workers in primary care. We will be exploring with the King's Fund and others ways in which to take forward this issue. We will look at the national system as regards criminal justice to see whether any lessons can be learnt.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the health of ethnic minority communities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is an issue concerning the varying inequalities in health among all groups. agree with my noble friend that inequalities in health among ethnic minority groups is a particularly serious problem. It is one of the reasons we invited Sir Donald Acheson to produce a report on tackling health inequalities. In his conclusion he recommended that the needs of minority ethnic groups should be specifically considered in terms of the allocation of resources to the NHS and specific programmes. We are considering our response to that report at the moment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a very great volunteer element in interpreting? Is he further aware that, as a dentist, I regularly had people come to my surgery with a friend or relative? Would it not be better to encourage that volunteer element rather than to involve ourselves in the vast expense arising from the court system, which I recall as a magistrate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to pay tribute to the work of volunteers in helping the NHS in this area. We rely on volunteers and members of families to help people who use the NHS by interpreting for them. However, there are circumstances where it is not appropriate—perhaps in the case of a child or someone who does not speak English as a first language—for a volunteer to be present at a consultation. It is essential that we have the back-up of a professional service as well.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, given the Minister's earlier reply, with which I agree, will he confirm that extra funding will be made available for those health authorities that need to employ professional translators; for instance in inner London, where patients may speak any of some 60 languages? Given that the funding of services for ethnic minorities is under pressure in the education sector through local government grants, will the Minister assure the House that that element of health funding will not be under pressure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I have said, in considering the outcome of the Acheson Report we
6
shall examine its recommendations in relation to funding. We already include in the capitation formula for allocation to health authorities an allowance for what is termed the English language difficulties adjustment. well understand the pressures on many inner-city health authorities. It is worth pointing out that, for instance, the East London City Health Authority budgeted in 1996–97 for nearly £3 million to be spent on interpreting services.
Baroness David: My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said about national health trusts, but will he tell the House what information is now available to them as regards the needs of language and the cultural backgrounds of the people in their area so that the trusts can provide a baseline from which to plan appropriate services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the most comprehensive set of data on local areas is provided by the 1991 National Census. However, that records only ethnic group and country of birth, not language or religion. Therefore, information at local level is more likely to be the product of local initiatives on the part of health authorities or local authorities in commissioning surveys.
The development of the new NHS proposals, particularly given the intention to develop health improvement programmes in consultation with local authorities and taking in primary care groups and NHS trusts, will provide the motivation to ensure that the information we have is as accurate as possible. That will then help us to plan the kind of services that we require.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no legal requirement for GPs to be able to speak English, and that that can in certain circumstances be dangerous for the care of patients? Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall respond to the noble Lord on that issue. In relation to the training of doctors in this country, we have made it clear to the medical schools that we wish them to ensure that all medical students well understand the needs of a multi-cultural society.

Gibraltar: MoD Contract
2.53
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the provisions of the Gibraltar Employment Ordinance were not adhered to in the transfer of the local workforce from Balfour Beatty to Hyder under the new Ministry of Defence contract.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Gibraltar Employment Ordinance were not adhered to in the transfer of the workforce from Balfour Beatty to Hyder. The transfer of the local workforce following the award of the work services management contract to Hyder is a matter

7
entirely between themselves and Balfour Beatty. However, the M. D has secured assurances from Hyder that the company will discharge its obligations under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that the directly employed labour force of 68, previously employed by Balfour Beatty, will be retained as a unit for the duration of the contract, as mentioned to me last Monday by the managing director of Hyder, Mr. Frederick Psyk? Will he also give an assurance that there is no question of employing casual temporary labour from across the border, to the detriment of local sub-contractors and workers, again as was said to me by the managing director of Hyder?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my figures are slightly different from the noble Lord's. I understood that 87 employees were involved, not 68. However, maybe the figure is 68. Yes, the noble Lord is right. The company is taking the entire number, and I can assure the noble Lord that they will be there for the full term of the contract. As regards bringing in workers from across the border, given what the Spanish authorities have done at the border, I should have thought that it would be rather difficult for them to get through at present.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the correct pronunciation of the company in question is "hudder" not "hider"?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I should have thought that the Spanish pronunciation would be "ee-dare"!

Au Pairs: Status
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to change the status of au pairs living with families and, if so, what consultations are planned on this matter.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have no plans at present to change the status of overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it seems to be in conflict with reports that I have read in the press. Is he aware of the degree of anxiety that is being caused to parents who are able to continue in employment only because of the present au pair system? If there is to be a change from the "reasonable allowance" provided for under Part 4, Section 88 of the Home Office Immigration Rules to the Department of Trade and Industry's national minimum wage, the cost of an au pairs will almost double. It will be from £70 to £95 per
8
week, depending on the age of the au pair. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to include in his March Budget a provision for those obliged to pay on the new basis that child care will be tax deductible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there is a fundamental change. For well over 20 years now, by virtue of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, employment is explicitly defined to include situations involving the engagement of au pairs by families. So the concept of employment is not new. An au pair should not work for more than five hours a day, with two days off. The national minimum wage proposals provide for a payment of £3 for the younger segment of au pairs and £3.60 for those aged over 22. As regards taxable benefits, I shall certainly transmit the noble Baroness's suggestion to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—with what hope of success I cannot guess.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that these young people, as they mostly are, are sufficiently protected against exploitation? Is it not most unfortunate if they are sometimes expected to undertake work for which they are not adequately trained—perhaps very small children, for example?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is right. One needs to bear in mind that the fundamental purpose of au pairs being in this country is to learn the language, culture and social traditions of this country. It is absolutely right that they should be protected. They are protected by virtue of regulations made under the 1973 Act. If there is any exploitation contrary to the Act and the regulations the DTI should be informed at once.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if a family lets a room to a lodger, the Inland Revenue allowance is £80 a week; but if, instead, they let the room to an au pair, and feed and look after the young person concerned, the allowance is only £20? How do the Government expect the au pair to be fed? Could this matter be re-examined?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the relationship of a lodger and a landlord is quite different from the family relationship with an au pair. I repeat: the au pair is here not to provide a source of under-paid, sometimes under-supervised employment; he or she is here fundamentally to learn the language. There are the restrictions that I have mentioned which have been extant for many years: no more than five hours a day, no more than five days a week.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say from what countries persons wishing to be au pairs may apply to come to the United Kingdom? Is he satisfied that the Immigration Rules are not in this respect racially discriminatory?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the au pair scheme covers nationals of Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,

9
the Faroes, Green and, Hungary, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland and Turkey. I do not believe that they are racially discriminatory.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are there any regulations concerning leaving au pairs in charge of very young children?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are not specific regulations that I am aware of, but the general law of the land relating to statutory parental obligations about the care of children overrides anything else. However, there are particular regulations which relate to au pairs, dealing with the nature of their employment and the form with which they must be provided.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister at the Home Office declare that au pairs are still under the regulations of the Home Office. However, I wonder where the national minimum wage comes in. Is the Minister aware that during the Report stage of the national minimum wage Bill, this House endorsed an amendment that I put down which gave the Secretary of State at her discretion, an opportunity to exempt certain categories of persons or occupations from the national minimum wage, if the need should arise. That was overturned in the House of Commons. I was described—not in the House of Commons, I hasten to say, but in a national newspaper—as the "vermin in ermine", in return for my hard work on that suggestion, which I found upsetting.
Does the Minister agree with me that his honourable friend in the other place who described my amendment as "a wrecking amendment" was incorrect? What my amendment would have done is to strengthen the Bill in order to allow the Government to depart from the unbending rigidity of the national minimum wage in certain circumstances. With the newspapers and the agencies for au pairs, that has caused a conflict between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness's questions, first, I am sorry that anyone should have called her "vermin in ermine". After all, we must remember that ermine is vermin.
I believe that there is no difficulty between the Home Office—which is a notoriously civilised and accommodating department—and our friends and colleagues in the DTI. Au pairs have some human rights. The obligation to pay £3 an hour—although it seems to be more than one is paid as a Home Office Minister—is not enormously burdensome.
Others of our colleagues in Europe have similar schemes. For example, in France employers must ensure that the value of the total employment package is at least equivalent to the French minimum wage. The Netherlands and Luxembourg include au pairs for the
10
purposes of national minimum wage levels, Belgium and Spain exempt them. So there are different approaches to the matter. However, au pairs have rights.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, on the list which the Minister has just read out the countries were mainly from Europe. Does he have it in mind to extend the list to countries in other parts of the world?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, others who are not nationals of the countries on the list I read out may come as working holidaymakers. So, for example, those who are Commonwealth citizens, including citizens of Australia, are entitled to come here as working holidaymakers. Those who are nationals of the European Union countries may come here by virtue of the provisions which allow free movement between one EU country and another.
I answered the particular question in that deliberate way because that is the au pair scheme, but it does not mean that nationals of other countries of the kind I described cannot come here with generally similar arrangements.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am shocked that the noble Lord said that £95 a week is nothing to pay. Last week the Secretary of State for Health was appealing to nurses to come back to work, yet they are expected to pay £95 a week out of their net income. I am disturbed by that. I feel that the conflict was bad enough without the Minister's remarks. Is he not aware of the conflict, first, between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and, now, the Department of Health? Does he not think that there is a dramatic difference between someone living as a member of one's family and an employee? Are there not other ways of dealing with the real problems brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner? An au pair is not to be exploited, but that does not mean that she should not live as a member of the family and learn English. Such people come here primarily as students.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that £95 a week was nothing. I said that £3 an hour was not a vast amount to pay. I believe that to be so. If any noble Lords doubt me, I invite them to try to live on a wage of £3 an hour.
Perhaps I may continue to answer the noble Baroness's questions. The fact that one lives in a family does not mean that there is no employment situation. I repeat that since 1973 the circumstances of an au pair are that he has been employed.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the noble Lord gave us an impressive list of countries. Will Her Majesty's Government add Poland to that list? If not, why not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have no intention of adding Poland to the list. If the time came when Poland became a member of the European Union, then Polish nationals would be able to come in ns of right in the way that 1 indicated earlier to the noble Lord,

11
Lord Dholakia. I have to tell your Lordships, with some regret, that there have been difficulties about immigration of Polish nationals. For example, in 1997 no fewer than 4, 000 were refused entry and 600 were detected here as being illegal entrants. There have been discussions between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and those who represent Polish interests.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not up to the prospective au pair to decide for himself or herself whether to take up the proposal of someone who wants to use their services? If they are not happy with the wages, they do not have to do the job.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer is that often or in most cases it is not a relationship of equality. The mere fact that a young man or young woman wants to come here to learn the language and benefit from our culture ought not to leave them open to wholly unprotected exploitation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would the Minister care to put straight a small error he may have made when he said that ermine was vermin? Does he agree that, in fact, it is the stoat which is vermin and that the stoat's winter coat, when removed from it, produces ermine which is worn by an honourable estate in the land?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right. What I should have said is: "dead ermine is vermin".

Business
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the national carers' strategy.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMI'FIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 34 [Child complainants and other child witnesses]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 35 [Direction prohibiting accused from cross-examining particular witness]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: I invite the Committee to say that Clause 35 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with directions prohibiting the accused from cross-examining witnesses of no particularly identified kind. It is common ground that child witnesses merit special provision. In Clause 33, the Government—in the teeth of judicial opposition—have concluded that in rape cases there should be an absolute bar on the accused personally asking questions. It was always thought that if that kind of clause was introduced it would soon be followed by a more general provision that gave similar power but inevitably involved the discretion of the judiciary, since otherwise it would be quite impossible to support it. I submit that the Government are over-egging the pudding. Having achieved in Clause 33 an absolute bar in rape cases, the temptation to extend this further should be resisted.
It was strongly contended by those who opposed Clause 33 that there was no evidence of any demand for that provision. Since May 1997 there have been no cases in which complainants have been abused or hectored and in which the courts have had to intervene to exercise the powers that the Lord Chief Justice identified in the case of Brown. There is even less evidence to suggest that this generalised provision should be on the statute book, which would no doubt bring with it quite unnecessary complications and delays. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Special provisions may be required in cases involving sexual offences and children, but there is no case for extending similar provisions, although discretionary, to a vague, broad area of the criminal law such as that provided for in this and the next clause. My objection is to the whole cumbersome machinery laid down by this clause. If one considers this and the succeeding clause, the two pages that encompass these provisions boil down to one sentence: defendants who act in person must not abuse their position. If they do so the judge should intervene.
I believe that a judge in a criminal case is in charge of his court and that the Committee should support him, not seek to impose statutory obligations upon him as if to seek to legislate for every possible circumstance that may arise. Criminal cases vary very considerably in their circumstances from one to another, and the only person who is capable of coming to a fair and just decision at any particular point in a case is the judge who hears it. He is apprised of all the facts, understands the state of the case and the point at which it has arrived and, in the light of that, can properly exercise his discretion. Should he be wrong and a defendant is convicted in those circumstances, there is an appeal procedure so that the exercise of that discretion—it is

13
not interfered with very often—may be reviewed by a higher court. But the more one seeks to introduce these statutory fetlocks around judicial discretion the greater the risk that miscarriages of justice will occur. For those reasons I support the opposition to this clause moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am also sympathetic to the opposition to this clause and the one that follows it. The noble and learned Lord said that he was unaware of any evidence of the need for provisions of this kind in cases other than rape avid serious sexual assault, which are dealt with elsewhere. We dealt with those matters on the previous Committee day. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to put before the Committee the evidence than this clause is necessary. Can he suggest how many cases have arisen in which the quality of evidence has been seriously diminished by the fact that the cross-examination of witnesses has been conducted by the accused? In asking that question I am conscious that no doubt lawyers initially will be inclined to believe that any cross-examination by them is better than that conducted by the accused and, that the quality of cross-examination, and hence presumably the quality of the evidence, will be better. I have some sympathy with that view, which may not necessarily be only the professional lawyer's view. But if the quality will always be diminished by the accused's cross-examination of a witness in comparison with cross-examination by a lawyer the clause looks a little peculiar.
I am also unclear as to the kind of cases envisaged in this provision. We are not (healing with rape and other serious sexual offences as set out in the previous clause and dealt with elsewhere. Presumably, we are dealing with burglary, assault and other offences of that kind. It appears to me and to others such as the Law Society that the cross-examination of witnesses in those cases is less likely to lead to difficulties. But the wording of the test in the clause appears to be questionable. The word "diminished" is entirely unqualified. The quality of the evidence does not have to be diminished seriously. It can be diminished by a very small amount. If so, it is diminished. It does not have to be likely to be seriously diminished but simply a little bit degraded from what it would otherwise have been.
Later one sees,
"that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice".
That is also a rather weak and negative test. The judge does not have to consider that it is in the interests of justice but simply that it is not contrary to the interests of justice to prohibit the accused from otherwise exercising his normal rights.
Slightly further on the definition of the quality of the evidence that may or may not be diminished brings in Clause 16(5) which makes reference to completeness, coherence and accuracy. In order to judge that one must make a judgment as to how the witness will react to being cross-examined by the accused as opposed to counsel. That is a difficult judgment to make at any time. Given that the degree of diminishment of the
14
quality of the evidence to trigger this provision can be only very small, I believe that the wording is rather dangerous and that these detailed points strengthen the overall case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Renton: I agree with those noble Lords who have complained about the apparent attempt to direct the court as to how to exercise its discretion. lf subsection (2) of Clause 35 were left alone I believe that all would be well. However, subsection (3) lists half a dozen matters that the court must bear in mind when exercising its discretion. However, other matters may arise which may also be relevant. To have the clause applying to the way in which these difficult cases are to be handled is wrong. If subsection (3) were left out it would help very much.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I shall deal with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I understand it, he is content with the broad scheme of subsection (2) but is troubled about the possible constraints on judicial discretion in subsection (3). I think that I fairly paraphrase.
One needs to bear in mind that all judicial discretion is to a certain extent circumscribed whether by statutory or appellate directions or indications. In this context the provisions in subsection (3) are not exclusive. I take the noble Lord's point entirely. In other words, he says quite rightly, there may also be other matters. I agree. That is why subsection (3) is cast in its present form. It states:
"In determining whether subsection (2)(a) applies in the case of a witness the court must have regard"—
I underline these words—
"in particular"—
making it quite plain that there are other matters which could legitimately, indeed properly, be taken into account when the judge comes to his conclusion. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord.
On the general matters, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is, I think, against this provision as a matter of fundamental approach. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says that there is no serious objection in principle; it is simply a cumbersome way of dealing with matters. The noble Lord rightly says that if a judge gives a direction which is so significantly unjust in the interests of the defendant as to cause the conviction to be rendered unsafe—again I paraphrase, but I think fairly—the appeal could be allowed. That is so. But that does not cater for the position where the witness is so vulnerable to cross-examination personally by the defendant that the evidence given is not the: best evidence available. There is no appeal in those circumstances.
We believe that there are some cases—I shall dome to the illustrations which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, wanted me to give—where Clauses 33 and 34 do not apply. We have traversed those at some length. They are cases in which the witness may be more: likely to give his or her best evidence if cross-examined by someone other than the accused. We believe that the

15
interests of justice are best served by putting good quality evidence before the courts. By "good quality" I seek to convey evidence in terms of coherence, completeness and accuracy. To strive for the best evidence is not to bring about injustice. Quite the opposite.
The sort of offences one might have in mind would be stalking, prolonged personal harassment or abuse with someone who may be genuinely vulnerable. For instance, if one has abuse or harassment on a continuing basis against—shall we say—an elderly person living alone, his best evidence may not be given if the alleged perpetrator is cross-examining. That is a category of case. But one does not simply have to consider a category of case. One needs to look at categories of witnesses. I give one illustration. There may be witnesses who could be particularly vulnerable to the defendant in person cross-examining. That vulnerability may well bring about not the best available evidence but evidence which simply conceals or obscures the truth rather than revealing it. It may well be a witness, for instance, with a learning disability. All we are doing in Clause 35— it is simply an empowerment of the judiciary; I stress that—is to give the court power either on an application or of its own motion, respectively subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b), to prohibit an unrepresented defendant from cross-examining witnesses in those cases which are not already covered in Clauses 33 and 34.
But there are constraints here. By subsection (2) the direction can be given only if it appears to the court,
"that the quality of evidence given by the witness on cross-examination is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination … is conducted by the accused in person"—
no judge will regard a de minimis diminution as a foundation for his jurisdiction here—
"and"—
we have the overarch—
"would be likely to be improved if a direction were given under this section"—
and the further overarch—
"and that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to give such a direction".
So what one is doing is to give to the judge at trial a discretion. It is a wide discretion.
I reiterate, if I may, the points I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Subsection (3) simply points the court's mind to certain features. They are not exclusive features. The judge has to carry out the balancing exercise which all judges do every day when they rule on admissibility of evidence, for instance. It gives the judge the discretion to take into account in particular the aspects covered in subsection (3)(a) to (f) inclusive but also any others that may be relevant.
Subsections (2) and (3) set out the criteria. The prohibition is to prevent the defendant's personal cross-examination. He will be able to have cross-examination, of course, through a legal representative. We do not believe that that is either contrary to the interests of justice or breaches any European convention right. It is not on the basis that all
16
lawyers cross-examine better than all defendants. It is simply a desire, which I believe to be long overdue, to make sure that witnesses in these vulnerable cases will be able to give the best evidence. If the best evidence leads to a proper conviction, that is a just outcome. If a failure to acquire in court on oath the best evidence leads to a wrongful acquittal, that is not justice. It is unjust. I suggest that it is one of those injustices which sometimes leads to the disenchantment and alienation of the public.
I repeat, if I may, because it is important, that the court must be satisfied that nothing in the circumstances of a particular case would make such a ban contrary to the interests of justice. The criteria are set out. I do not think that it is helpful to the Committee to recite them again. I give the reference: page 25, subsection (3)(a) to (f). We believe that these provisions—they will not be used every day in every court—should be available for the judges to exercise their discretion on what I stress remains a judicial basis.
Lord Wigoder: The Minister repeatedly referred to "the judge". Have I misread Clauses 35 to 37? Do they not apply equally to magistrates' courts proceedings? Is it not for the magistrate to follow through these complicated procedures to decide whether the questioning may be unfair, even in the most trivial of offences? In a large percentage of trivial offences the defendant represents himself in the magistrates' court. Has the magistrate then to go through all these procedures to decide whether the unrepresented defendant can have legal aid in order to ensure that justice is done?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The magistrates sit judicially. That is why the word "court" is used in the subsection. But magistrates have to make rulings which are sometimes difficult. They have the advantage of legal advice from their clerk. There is nothing novel in this. I would expect there to be relatively few cases in the magistrates' court. The noble Lord is right. More than 95 per cent. of criminal cases are tried in the magistrates' courts. But magistrates have to come to these conclusions regularly as part of their judicial work with legal advice that they are given by their clerk which they apply to the facts of the case.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: I have friends who have suffered the problem of stalkers and I know how traumatic has been it was for those ladies. Therefore, I support the principle that the court should be able to bar a stalker, for instance, from cross-examining the victim in person. While stalking is not as serious a matter as rape, it is extremely traumatic for the ladies concerned and therefore I would welcome the proposed principle. It is right that in such instances the court should have a discretion to bar cross-examination by the accused.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If the provisions were specifically directed towards stalking or harassment cases they would be less objectionable. However, the provisions apply across the whole of the criminal law.

17
They could apply for example, to a fraud case in the Crown Court where a person seeks to shelter under the provisions by saying to the prosecutor, "The defendant is my employer. I am feeling very nervous today and I should be grateful if you could ensure that that particular person does not ask me any questions".
Stress is endemic in the judicial process. Everyone in court is under some degree of stress, whether it be the advocates, the judge, the witnesses and, most certainly, the defendant. One cannot avoid stress in the courtroom. The problem with such provisions is that they "cotton wool" witnesses against the proper cross-examination which in our system usually results in the truth becoming known. That is a stressful situation in which truth becomes apparent. If a witness is forever insulated from cross-examination, whether it be from the accused or his representative—that is not suggested here—the truth will not come out. I have an objection to the whole cumbersome machinery of the clause.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in a little more detail the kind of cases and instances in which the clauses might apply. He suggested that the measure related to vulnerable witnesses. Earlier in the Bill we considered the definition of "vulnerable" witnesses and what should be done to protect them by way of screens and so forth. Clauses 16 and 17 set out who are vulnerable witnesses. Will the Minister consider including these provisions in that part of the Bill which covers vulnerable witnesses and provides for other means of protecting them? That might make the clause a little more acceptable than it is in its present blanket form.
Baroness Ludford: I have not been concerned with the Bill, but I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The cruse of vulnerable complainants and witnesses is obviously not served by miscarriages of justice on the other side. It is not a gain for one at the expense of the other. Will the Minister say a little more about the clause? He used stalking and harassment as illustrations. As stalking is now a statutory offence, can he be more specific about the offences which are covered? After all, there are strong civil liberty implications. The Government have properly tried to strike the best balance between the civil liberties and rights of the accused and the protection of vulnerable complainants and witnesses in order that they come forward and are prepared to go through the trauma of a trial.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the stress involved in appearing as a witness. There must be a distinction between being prepared to tolerate that stress in the interests of justice and being protected from the traumatic situation of reliving the offence. Can the Minister be more specific so that that balance is properly struck? I have sympathy with the concerns expressed about the clause going too far and potentially damaging the civil liberties and rights of the defendant.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not say that the measure was a protection for witnesses who are stressed.
18
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said on another occasion that stress is an inevitable experience for anyone who goes into court, from the presiding judge down to the usher. I do not disagree with him. Lawyers who appear in court all the time are more familiar than witnesses, but not totally at ease.
It has been asked in various ways why we do not have a list of offences. The reason is that I sought to indicate the categories of offence and then I thought that I had explained that there were categories of witnesses. Perhaps I may take up the helpful observation of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who spoke about particular incidents of harassment and the fact that the generally female victim of the alleged harassment might be unable to give her best evidence. Thai is right, yes, and it might well be the same for an elderly widow who has been burgled six times by a notorious local thug. The elderly widow living alone has civil rights arid liberties, one of them being that the state ought to secure her safety in her home. If that fails, proper acquittals should be brought about, but also proper convictions should be brought about in whatever the court of trial—the magistrates' court or the Crown Court.
That is not a charier for everyone to say, as in the example of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, "My boss is the defendant in this fraud case and I feel a little uneasy about my employment prospects". If that application were made by or on behalf of the witness in question, it would not be upheld. One is talking about cases which are severely circumscribed by the provisions in Clause 2. The court has to determine that the quality of evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished if the cross-examination is conducted by the accused in person; and that it would be likely to be improved if a direction were given under the clause; and that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to give such a direction.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I believe that one cannot have lists of cases. Obviously, one chooses the cases which are likely to give trouble, but one must look at the witnesses. Witnesses may 'well suffer the disabilities of being unable properly to give the best quality of evidence; in other words, that impediment to the functioning of a proper criminal justice system may be infinite. It is not the offence which matters, but the relationship between the defendant and the witness whom he wishes to cross-examine. We are saying that if these tests are established to the proper satisfaction of the magistrates, with the legal advice they receive, or the judge, having considered these matters and directed his mind, the court ought to have the reserve power to direct that an individual cannot cross-examine the witness.
I believe that that:, s a step towards better justice and not an infringement of the interests of the defendant or against his human rights. There is a prosecution and a defence in a case. Of course, the prosecution has an

19
interest as, self-evidently, does the defendant. However, there is a further interest; namely, a public interest that the best quality evidence should be available.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Will the Minister respond to my suggestion that this clause might be confined to vulnerable witnesses as defined earlier?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am so sorry. I did not mean the noble Lord, Lord Cope, any discourtesy. As always, I shall give careful consideration to anything that is said in this Committee, as I shall to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and what he is about to say in summarising his position. I have always been open to further reflection. I always say "without guarantee". But I can say from my own knowledge that on such questions officials are extremely alert to the fact that we may not have got it right first time. I believe that we have. However, I am sorry that I did not respond more positively to the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Ackner: The only matter on which I should like the Minister to reflect is that there is no need to give this power by statute. It is already there. A judge, in the control of his court, may say to a defendant, "Your cross-examination is excessively hectoring", or, alternatively, "It is irrelevant. When the jury were out, before you began to cross-examine, I gave you certain advice. If you will not adhere to it then you will not be allowed to ask any further questions. I shall ask the questions on your behalf'. All that seems to be overlooked and perhaps it could be the subject matter of some reflection between now and Report stage. However, at present, I do not press my objection.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 37 [Defence representation for purposes of cross-examination]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108:
Page 26, line 33, leave out ("34 or 35").
The noble Lord said: If Clauses 34 and 35 are to remain in the Bill, this amendment prevents altogether the appointment of a legal representative.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that what I regard as the unworkable machinery of the appointment of a legal representative to cross-examine a witness does not apply in these particular cases. However, I do not propose to say any more about it because it is on the next group of amendments that I wish to make my points. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 26, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 109, together with Amendment No. 111, is that if a representative is to be appointed then that representative should not simply be appointed to cross-examine a witness but should be appointed to put the defence case as a whole to all the witnesses who are before the court thereafter.
It seems to me to be suggested that the court may appoint a legal representative to come into a trial. It may then say to him, "All right, you now cross-examine witness X. For various reasons, I have decided that the defendant acting in person should not be allowed to cross-examine this particular witness. I now want you to carry on and cross-examine". That must lead immediately to an adjournment. The issue will then arise whether the representative so appointed should have a conference or consultation with his client in which he learns something about the case; in which he receives instructions as to what the defendant wants to put; and finds out whether the defendant will co-operate with him.
If a defendant co-operates with a court-appointed legal representative, then I suppose that the system can work. But almost by definition, a defendant who is representing himself has rejected the possibility of having a legal representative in the case generally in any event. Therefore, he is in a position in which he will not wish to co-operate. The legal representative appointed by the court will not know what sort of case he must put and which points must be made to a witness. Of course, at the end of the case, when addressing the jury or the magistrates, the defendant will be entitled to say, "I did not want that lawyer to represent me. He has not asked the questions I wanted him to ask. I have been the subject of injustice". In a jury trial in particular, that may well lead to the jury agreeing that it is unjust and acquitting when it should convict. That was a point made at some length in our earlier deliberations by my noble friend Lord Wigoder. The whole suggestion that an outside lawyer can be dragged in to cross-examine one witness is quite wrong.
The effect of the amendments which I propose is that if that machinery is employed, the lawyer will not simply pop in and pop out so that when that witness has been disposed of, he is bid goodbye and the defendant then carries on unrepresented. If the lawyer is called into the case, he should at least stay there and give some assistance throughout the rest of the case. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have always thought that freedom was the foundation of our democratic way of life and that our system of justice was intended to uphold that freedom. But Clause 37(3) runs right against that. It would mean that an accused person who did not want to have a legal representative would have one thrust upon him. That does not seem to me to be right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendments Nos. 109 and 111 seem to me solely to delete the provisions which provide for the accused, faced with the possibility of not being able to cross-examine, at least to consider whether he will willingly have, at that stage, a lawyer appointed

21
by the court to do the job for him or for that matter appointed by himself to do the job for him in regard to cross-examination.
If that provision is to be put into the Bill, it seems to me that what is provided in subsections (2) and (3), which would be deleted by Amendments Nos. 109 and 111, are necessary or at least desirable to give the accused the opportunity to appoint his own lawyer at the last minute, just when he knows that he is about to have that sanction imposed upon him.
The noble Lori Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred also to the point Amendment No. 110—and it seems convenient to discuss that with this group—that when a lawyer is appointed by the court to act on behalf of the defendant who cannot cross-examine for himself, he should put the whole case for the defence. It seems to me that it would be extremely helpful if the lawyer concerned were involved in the whole of the case for the defence, not just in the small part of it which involved the cross-examination in the middle of the case of a single witness who happened to be a vulnerable witness, as we have discussed. It seems to me that that is to ask a very great deal of the lawyer, even if he has the co-operation of the accused.
If we put a Lawyer in that circumstance, then the quality of the cross-examination is likely to be diminished—to borrow a phrase we were discussing earlier—and make it extremely difficult to conduct. But it will he even worse if the accused still does not wish to have a lawyer acting on his behalf. Given that the accused, by definition, is likely to be someone who is anti-lawyer and certainly does not want a lawyer acting for him, it is highly likely that in a number of cases he will not wish to co-operate with the court-appointed lawyer who is supposed to be acting for him.
In those circumstances, counsel will have even more difficulty in conducting a high quality cross-examination and the whole problem is compounded. That is why I tabled Amendment No. 109A, which it may be convenient to include in this group since we have already wandered from the narrow point of Amendments Nos. 109 and 111. Amendment No. 109A suggests that the court-appointed lawyer should only be appointed if the accused agrees to his appointment and therefore some reasonable element of co-operation can be expected between the two.
I realise that if the accused were still to refuse the appointment of a lawyer, then no cross-examination would take place because there would be no lawyer and the defendant would be unable to conduct it himself. That might raise once again the problem of human rights and the European Convention. After all, this whole clause exists to some degree in order to keep us on the right side of the Convention by providing for some way in which a defendant who is otherwise unrepresented, can be represented.
But it does not seem to be in line with natural justice that someone who has resisted a lawyer for the whole case and continues to resist even briefing one for the cross-examination, should nevertheless be forced at that point to have a lawyer to conduct that cross-examination. On the face of it, that cross-examination is
22
not likely to be of high quality or contribute necessarily to the interests of the accused, which the court-appointed lawyer will have a great deal of difficulty in determining if he has not been properly briefed and included in the discussions as to how the defence might best be conducted in all the circumstances.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I can make one small point. If a new lawyer is to be brought into the case in the middle, unless that lawyer has been sitting in court throughout the case he will not know how it has gone and the correct questions to ask. Is it proposed therefore that where an accused decides to act for himself and is likely to be instructed to have a lawyer, there should be a third or additional lawyer sitting in court purely as an observer until such time as he is appointed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: A defendant who is banned from cross-examining a witness on the basis of this Bill becoming law, still has a right to a fair trial. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended in 1991, the Committee is aware from our previous discussions that defendants are banned from cross-examining child witnesses in certain cases. That is the present law. There are no arrangements for those who refuse to appoint a legal representative for the purpose.
At the moment therefore a judge has a very unsatisfactory choice. He can either let the evidence against an unrepresented defendant go untested in cross-examination or he can ask the witness questions himself. I take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about freedom of choice: the defendant has no freedom of choice if the judge in control of the case wishes to ask those questions by way of testing the evidence in cross-examination. But it is not suitable, if we can avoid it, for the judge to appear even to descend into the arena to ask the witness questions.
We consider that any defendant who is prevented from cross-examining the witness should be allowed to appoint and instruct a lawyer to conduct the cross-examination on his own behalf even if he wants to conduct the rest of his defence himself. We are infringing on his wishes to that limited extent. A lawyer appointed by the defendant can be instructed by him. He will be able to conduct cross-examination fully informed by the defendant's view of the alleged offence and the defence, if any, that he wishes to put forward.
Where a defendant refuses to instruct a representative we believe that the court should ensure that someone other than a member of the court itself should conduct the cross-examination—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—it could be the magistrates through the chair or the judge. We feel it is better that there is at least some testing of the evidence in. the interest of helping the court to its conclusions. Perhaps I can give some examples; it is not too difficult to imagine them.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, there would be no necessity for the lawyer to be constantly in court because there would be full disclosure to him under Clause 37 (7). The lawyer who is court appointed

23
for this restricted purpose could quite easily conduct a satisfactory examination. For instance, if an alibi notice has been served which is an obligation under the Rules of Court if one is running an alibi defence, he can familiarise himself with the alibi and cross-examine on that if he wants to. He can read through the depositions and familiarise himself with what the defendant may or may not have said in the police interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He can study the medical evidence if it is a case of rape and cross-examine on that basis. There may be pathological evidence that he can use for cross-examination. So one can in fact conduct a perfectly useful cross-examination on this limited basis.
At the moment, I stress, all that can be done is place either a blanket prohibition on the defendant cross-examining or the judge must do it himself. It is not right for the court to appear to enter the arena and it is a better safeguard for the defendant to have a court-appointed lawyer. We have a criminal justice system which, in the eyes of many—sometimes I feel justifiably—resembles a game. It is not a game for a defendant to dictate that it is his bat and he is going home.
Lord Renton: The Minister is suggesting that the person to be appointed on behalf of the accused is to be a friend of the court—in fact, an amicus curiae. But suppose the defendant strongly objects to anyone being appointed to represent him or his interests; what is the court then to do?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: He is not strictly an amicus, but even if he were, the amicus has, in many cases—the noble Lord and I know perfectly well—an important role to play. I go back to my earlier proposition which cannot be assailed. At the moment the unrepresented defendant cannot cross-examine child witnesses in a variety of cases. The evidence therefore goes untested or the judge or the magistrates carry out the cross-examination. I am saying that it is an improvement to have a lawyer who is nominated by the court to ask those questions. On the illustrations I have given, in some circumstances—I concede, not all—a perfectly useful cross-examination can be carried out. It is better than the present system.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister help the Committee by telling us exactly how that will work? Will there be lawyers in the background, not listening to the case but available if required; or will they have to be sent for and come on a bicycle or whatever? Once the lawyer has arrived, will any adjournment mean a long delay? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that there would have to be an adjournment while the lawyer becomes apprised of the situation and what he has to do. I am wondering what the cost of that will be in court time, lawyers' fees, and so on. How will the mechanics work?
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The answer to the noble Baroness's question is contained in Clause 37, which states
"(2) Where it appears to the court that this section applies, it must
(a) invite the accused to arrange for a legal representative to act for him for the purpose of cross-examining the witness"
—that is one alternative—
"(b) require the accused to notify the court, by the end of such period as it may specify, whether a legal representative is to act for him for that purpose".
The judge, in that class of case, will come to an early conclusion because he will know at the outset whether the relevant sections apply. If the case is difficult or intricate, he will obviously give the defendant a certain latitude in terms of time. If the case is perfectly simple, the defendant can reply quite quickly.
It is often possible to find an available lawyer in a court centre. One does not want to return to the days, which certainly I am ashamed to say that I remember, when we all sat in court, desperately looking the other way and hoping that we would not be the recipient of a dock brief for one or two guineas.
Subsection (3) states
"If by the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(b)—
those are the two periods that I mentioned earlier in answer to the noble Baroness—
"(a) the accused has notified the court that no legal representative is to act for him"—
or he has not made any notification, the court must consider whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the witness to be cross-examined by a legal representative. Again, that period of time will be for the judge to determine bearing in mind a fair number of circumstances: first, the intricacy of the case; secondly, the nature of the evidence that the witness is likely to give (because there will be a witness statement to that effect); thirdly, whether any medical evidence needs to be taken on board; fourthly, whether any great reading of the depositions is needed; and fifthly, whether any alibi witness needs to be considered.
The judge will say—this is not difficult because judges come to these conclusions when deciding on adjournments at present—"One day is enough" or, "One week is sufficient, "or that 28 days may be needed. Judges and magistrates do that constantly. It seems simple for the judge, the magistrate, the court, to conclude the appropriate length of time for a proper cross-examination.
The clause also points out that the advocate is testing the evidence against the accused in order to give him a fair trial and is doing so to the best of his ability in the circumstances which then obtain. I suggest that that means looking at the alibi notice, if there is one, and all the other documentation to which I referred. It is not difficult for the judge to come to that conclusion. I repeat that he performs such an exercise when talking about giving an adjournment for half a day, a day or a week.
Lord Ackner: I suggest to the Minister that the complicated situation which we have been discussing is the product of the total embargo on the defendant in person

25
cross-examining. The judge will know, right from the beginning of the case, that the defendant is acting in person. Therefore, he can anticipate, when the time comes, that the defendant will seek to cross-examine in person. I suggest that an experienced judge, in the light of all our discussions, would adopt a procedure something like this: at the end of the opening of the prosecution case, the judge asks the jury to retire. He then says to the defendant in person, "In due course do you want to cross-examine the complainant?". The answer is, "Yes". The judge then says, "We have certain rules with which we have to comply and I think it would be convenient if you and I discussed the position now. What is the issue to which your cross-examination will be directed?" The defendant then answers, "She consented". The judge then says, "Tell me the circumstances in which you are going to suggest that she consented". As the judge and the defendant are on perfectly good terms, the judge is told that, and he achieves all the detail he requires.
Now we come to the position when the complainant has given her evidence in chief and the defendant rises to cross-examine. Without the blanket prohibition, the judge is in a position to see whether that cross-examination will be conducted properly, without hectoring or abusing the complainant. He discovers, as is the case from time to time, that the defendant carries out a perfectly polite, respectful and sometimes very effective, cross-examination and there is no problem.
However, the judge may find on the contrary that the defendant is abusing his position. He then sends out the jury and says to the defendant, "I've already told you about the rules we have. Now, let's get this quite clear. We'll go back into open court and if you don't adhere to what I have told you, I shall stop your cross-examination and I shall put your case to the jury myself, as you've explained it to me". They go back into open court and either the defendant has learnt to behave himself, or he has not, in which case the judge carries out the cross-examination, having explained to the jury that he is adopting that course because the defendant will not comply with his instructions.
That is a very uncomplicated position in relation to a situation which is not likely to happen frequently. I suggest that that is what the Lord Chief Justice has well in mind in the case of R v. Brown; and it is what the judiciary supports throughout. The present situation (of trying to foist on to a difficult defendant legal representation which he will refuse) does not arise and the danger of an unjust conviction or an unjust acquittal, to which the Lord Chief Justice has referred more than once, again does not arise. I respectfully suggest that perhaps the Minister might reflect at greater length on what I have said between now and Report.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. These provisions in part are intended not to deal simply with the nature of cross-examination. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, gave as an example someone who is terrified at the prospect of being asked questions by the alleged stalker or an elderly woman who is terrified at being asked questions by a notoriously bullying thug. It is the prospect of that experience, not the particular
26
questions, which may bring about the vice that we are addressing. There is no need to wait until the prosecution has finished opening the case. The directions can typically be given at a plea and directions hearing, before the jury is empanelled, to ensure the efficient and effective conduct of the case.
The noble and learned Lord said that the questioning by the advocate would be "foisted" on the defendant. I respectfully repeat the present position. If, in the child witness cases, there: s a blanket refusal to allow the unrepresented defendant to cross-examine in person—and there is—the only present alternatives are: no cross-examination at all (in other words, no testing of the evidence), or the judge himself "foists"—I use the noble and learned Lo:1-d's word—his cross-examination on the defendant. The defendant has no right to step that. The judge is in charge of the court and the case.
We are offering an improvement or the present system so that if a defendant wishes he may have legal representation for the forbidden in-person cross-examination. He can do all the rest of the cross-examination and the conduct of the case himself. If he will not appoint a lawyer himself for the otherwise forbidden cross-examination, the court will appoint a lawyer. I do not see any difficulty about that. However, as always, I shall pay careful attention to everything that Members of the Committee have said and in particular to the words addressed to me most recently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We regard the adversarial system as the centre of our criminal justice system. It requires examination and cross-examination of witnesses in order to discern the truth. That cross-examination has to come from a person who is fully informed of the case that he is seeking to put. If a defendant chooses to act in person he may or may not be more skilled than a lawyer, but he is at least fully informed of the case he wishes to put.
The problem with the imposition of a lawyer on an unwilling defendant is this. It throws askew the whole adversarial system to which we have been accustomed and which has grown up over centuries. It puts into the equation a completely unknown factor. It may be that there can be some justification for that in_ very special cases such as when children are involved or where there is a complaint of rape or other sexual offences. I can live with that. But the Bill envisages that this protection is to be extended to witnesses across the system. It can apply to any case and any witness. As the noble Lord just said, it can be applied not because the defendant is misbehaving himself an any way in defending himself or that he has overstepped any particular boundary or mark; it can be imposed on him because of the particular sensitivity of a particular witness. So in every type of case and with every type of witness there can now be a new, unknown factor introduced into a system which is balanced and which we believe has arrived at the truth, by and large, in the criminal cases heard in this country.

27
We are stepping into completely uncharted waters. For the moment I seek leave to withdraw these amendments, but I shall return to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I believe that this is a convenient time to take the Statement. Before we move to the Statement on the National Strategy for Carers, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion of a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Carers Strategy
4.13 p.m.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Paul Boateng. The Statement is as follows
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the publication today of the Government's National Strategy for Carers.
"The Prime Minister announced plans for a National Strategy for Carers, which he asked me to lead, on 10th June 1998.
"The Government believe, as the Prime Minister himself said last June. that carers play a vital role in the community and also in supporting families. Without them, the NHS and social services could never hope to provide that which they contribute to the care of the sick and vulnerable. The Government are determined to see that carers get the support they need.
"The Prime Minister said that the national strategy should bring together existing initiatives into a single package for the first time. We have done more than this. As I shall explain, we are today announcing a substantial new policy package for carers.
"The work on the National Strategy for Carers has involved a large number of organisations: not only Government departments, people from the National Health Service and local authorities, but also individual carers, representatives of carers' organisations, and of more specialised voluntary organisations which help, for example, people with mental health problems. We are grateful to all of those who joined working groups and to those who attended a major consultative conference on the strategy held last November.
"The policies of a large number of Government departments impact on carers. The document published today involves all of them. We held for the very first time two meetings of a Ministerial Group specifically established to consider carers issues.
"People who provide care for their relatives or friends who are disabled, vulnerable or frail can devote large parts of their own lives to looking after others. Many of them are also in paid work. The majority of carers are women. All of them need some help and support. Our National Strategy for Carers describes what we have been doing. It describes what we are going to do. Carers will have better information. They will be better supported. They will be cared for better themselves.
"Two-thirds of carers of working age are in paid employment. For many of them, combining work with caring can be difficult. The Government's family-friendly employment strategy will help them. We will give carers the right to time off to deal with a family emergency. A carer might need, for example, time to take his or her elderly parent to hospital following a fall. The Second Reading of the necessary legislation, the Employment Relations Bill, is scheduled for tomorrow.
"We have also considered those carers who cannot combine paid work with caring. For those of working age, many of them would like to do so. Even more would like to be able to return to work when their caring responsibilities come to an end. We will consider the scope for extending the New Deal to help carers to return to work. We will publicise the benefits—to employers, as well as to carers—of flexible, carer-friendly employment policies. We will consider our own position as a major employer and make sure that we set the highest standards for carers working in the public sector.
"Carers also need support from the statutory services. This does not just mean social services. All services need to provide carers with information and to involve them in the planning of services. Only in this way can services be more responsive to carers' needs.
"The National Health Service has an important role here. First, it must help carers to maintain their own health. Half of all carers in a recent study said they had suffered from a physical injury since they began to care. Half said that they had been treated for stress-related illnesses. The Government's National Priorities Guidance to health and local authorities will require those authorities to help carers to maintain their health and emotional wellbeing.
"The National Health Service must also provide information to help carers to care. They need to know about the health needs, treatment and medication of the person they are caring for. Of course this can only be done with the consent of the patient. But sometimes doctors do not ask whether the patient agrees. We believe that doctors should always do so.
"We have already announced an extra £750 million for local authorities over the next three years to help them promote independence, especially through

29
greater partnership with the health service over prevention and rehabilitation. People who need care, and their carers, will benefit from this.
"We are providing additional funding, from within the Comprehensive Spending Review plans, of £140 million for England over the next three years specifically to help carers. This will be a new ringfenced special grant. It will go to local authorities to extend the range of services they provide to give carers a break from their caring responsibilities. The research evidence shows that carers who have a break are better able to cope and that their own health suffers less. The new special grant will total £20 million in 1999–2000, £50 million in 2000–2001, and £70 million in 2001–2002.
"We also intend, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce new legislation to extend the powers which local authorities have to address carers' needs directly. At the moment, the focus of most of the legislation is on the person needing care. We want carers to have more control over the form and timing of the services which they need. This is especially true of services. designed to give them a break from caring.
"The national carers' strategy will also help some specific groups of carers. First, we are announcing today that there will be a reduction in council tax for some disabled people. People who live in accommodation which is valued at band A and which has an extra room, which they need because of their disability, or enough floor space to allow them to move around in a wheelchair, will receive a reduction in council tax similar to that which is given now for the other bands. This change will be made from 1st April 2000.
"Secondly, we have particular concerns about young carers. The Government are taking extensive action to offer new help to children and young people. We are placing particular emphasis on supporting the most disadvantaged children and their families. Children who have to provide personal care to a parent may not realise that they are carers. But their attendance at school can suffer. They can also have difficulty doing their homework. Often they have no time for leisure, for play, or to meet their friends. The Government will promote awareness of the needs of young carers. We will encourage schools to make sure there is someone to support them. This need not be a teacher—it could be someone else with the right skills and time 1:0 develop special expertise. Children who are carers may need help to contact professionals in the health service, the social services, or a local project worker specifically for young carers.
"There is also a group of children who need more care themselves than other children of the same age. Their parents are particularly in need of help and support. They may feel unable to spend enough time with the rest of their family. We are increasing the help and support that we provide to parents with a disabled child. We have already announced new objectives for children's services, which require local and health authorities to work together to meet the
30
needs of disabled children. Social services will get an extra £375 million to help them to meet the needs of vulnerable children. We are also introducing new children's nursing teams, in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, to support those children who have life-threatening health problems. These will cost £2 million a year initially, and we are establishing 10 teams around the country.
"Many carers need help and support in the neighbourhoods where they live. In general, we believe that this is best provided by voluntary organisations. Carers' centres are one example. These already exist in a number of areas. We want to make sure that all carers have access to a support service near to where they live. The national strategy report also describes how we intend to make sure that carers get a high quality service from such carers' centres.
"The National Strategy for Carers contains a great deal of information about carers and their needs. But in some cases we lack information. This is why we will be introducing a new question about carers in the 2001 census. The results of this new question will tell us, for example, how many carers there are in each local authority area. The information will allow local authorities to plan much better how to provide services for carers to meet their needs.
"The Government believe that what carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported. We—the Government and the whole country—should take pride in carers. The Government are determined to make sure that carers can feel proud of what they do and of a society which recognises the debt of gratitude that we owe them for doing it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be particularly grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, which contains much that we can welcome. The proposals highlight a very sizeable group of people in our society whose daily work is as vital as it is unsung. We are at one with the Government in their wish to give them the recognition or their efforts that they deserve. We hear much nowadays about the supposed breakdown of family life and of the disappearance of the sense of duty and the sense of responsibility accompanying it. However, it is the carers in our society who, thankfully, belie that rather depressing image. They are people who voluntarily shoulder a heavy burden of responsibility and often, in the process, a heavy emotional burden, sometimes from a young age and sometimes for a period of many years' duration. As the Statement says, if we did not have such people, it would be hard to imagine how the NHS and the social services would be able to fill the gap anything Ike adequately.
We welcome the additional funding that has been earmarked and ring-fenced to enable carers to take breaks from their responsibilities. However, I have two questions for the Minister in that respect. First, can the noble Baroness say how much of that money is newly announced money; and, secondly, can she tell us what

31
kinds of respite care the Government envisage? As the Minister will know, the availability around the country of regular respite care for the elderly is very variable and often involves the elderly person having to be moved out rather than someone coming to the house from outside to take the carer's place. Can the Minister confirm that it is the latter type of arrangement that the Government wish to encourage? Can she also say what emphasis the Government are placing on involving the voluntary sector in these initiatives? I mention that particularly because of the reduction in funding to voluntary groups which has been forced upon local authorities by changes in the distribution of local government grants. Indeed, in some areas, the changes have led to cuts in social services. Therefore, one cannot help feeling that this announcement, at least in part, is a case of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The Statement rightly calls attention to the need for better information about the services currently available to carers, as well as those which are proposed. Is there anything more the Minister can tell us as regards the Government's ideas on the matter? One extremely important aspect is the need to raise awareness of training opportunities for carers, especially in terms of first aid and health and safety. Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, can she say what sorts of opportunity for training the Government would like to see provided?
We welcome moves to augment the pension entitlement of carers. But, again, I am afraid that it is a case of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. As the Minister will know, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's targeting of pension funds and the poorest small savers which is set to yield very substantial inflows into the Treasury in the years ahead. I welcome further details of the Government's pension proposals. However, does the Minister agree that the carers of today are equally deserving of the benevolence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will she seed the thought in the mind of her right honourable friend of the merits of a transferable tax allowance for single-earner married couples to ease the burden on such couples where one partner gives up work to take on the responsibilities of a carer?
The extent to which these proposals have a real impact on the lives of carers depends, critically, on the way in which they are developed at local level. Can the Minister tell us what specific initiatives the Government wish to see taken by local authorities? Equally, can she say what concrete proposals the Government have to encourage carer-friendly employment policies both in the public sector and in the private sector, as opposed to the inevitably more generalised approach adopted in the Employment Relations Bill? Given the structure of the Government's New Deal, can the Minister say what provision is to be made by the Government for carers who are either unable or unwilling to return to work because of caring commitments?
As I indicated earlier, we welcome these initiatives and look forward to following their implementation in practice over the months and years ahead.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. In many ways, the strategy document is a very impressive one. From these Benches, I pay tribute to the something like 6 million carers who, I believe, save the state around £34 billion—a very large figure—in terms of the work that they do in looking after friends and relatives. Such caring would otherwise have to be paid for by the state. We are certainly very conscious on these Benches of the work that they do and also of the voluntary organisations which represent them so effectively. A number have been mentioned today and also feature in the document.
We welcome the commendable and notable speed with which the strategy has been put together since last June. The carers' strategy contains many important practical elements but the financial aspects of the package are somewhat modest. We should not become carried away by the proposals. We welcome the respite care proposals and also the brochure which accompanies the strategy paper. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will consider more generous measures in future? If one calculates the amount per carer of the financial package for this coming year, the amount is about 15p per week. Will the Government therefore consider more generous measures in future?
My next point was mentioned by the noble Earl. The Government have acknowledged that social services' budgets will be about £100 million short this year. We know that the carer assessments are not up to scratch and only about two out of 10 carers have so far been assessed by their local authorities. What impact will the lack of resources for local government have on those assessments? As regards retirement, we welcome the announcements about second pensions. We look forward to hearing further details in due course. Today's carers are of key importance. What consideration are the Government giving to providing benefits beyond retirement age to today's carers?
We also welcome the consideration that is being given to extending the New Deal to carers returning to work. When will that decision be made? We welcome the Government's commitment to carer-friendly employment policies and their commitment to monitor those policies. However, monitoring by itself is not enough. That needs to be benchmarked against best practice by other major employers and other government institutions. We welcome the statement about national priorities guidance and in particular the requirement on health and local authorities taking account of carers' needs. But what consultation requirements as regards health improvement programmes will be built into legislation?
The Government make strong and welcome statements in the strategy document about information for carers. I welcome the references to the StartHere project. That may play an important role in providing information for carers and health professionals. Will the Department of Health consider bringing forward the evaluation of that project to a date earlier than April 2000?

33
The Government have naturally raised expectations through this strategy. We welcome many of the proposals. However, the strategy is not so much a revolution as modest evolution towards proper consideration of the needs of carers. We welcome it but we look forward to hearing of more extensive proposals on the financial aspects.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their support of the thrust of government policy and also for their generous recognition of the enormous role that carers play in the fabric of society and communities in this country, and the individual and communal support that they provide to many of our fellow citizens.
First, I shall mention funding and resources. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that the proposals were modest. I urge noble Lords not to look simply at the £140 million special grant, but to recognise that, for example, £750 million will be allocated to local authorities over the next three years to help them to promote independence by concentrating on prevention and rehabilitation. That will be important for people who need care and for their carers. I refer also to today's council tax announcement. Those measures will all be helpful.
The £140 million special grant is new money in the sense that it is ring-fenced. It is part of the £3 billion extra money for personal social services that will be made available, During the CSR period. It will be distributed in the yearly tranches to which I referred in the Statement. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked exactly what the money would be allocated for, the role of the voluntary sector and about getting away from some of the rigidities as regards the models of service and breaks that have been offered in the past. The measure is aimed at widening the scope of the provision that is available and encouraging innovation based on the articulated needs of people in different local authority areas.
One of the conditions of receiving respite care grant is consultation with local carers and the voluntary services about the kind of services which should be provided. I believe that the search for diversity will result in a greater focus on home based services and flexible services that may allow people to spend a period out of their own homes rather than the person needing care having to leave his or her home in order for the carer to have a break. Often the carer knows that that is not acceptable to the person receiving the care and therefore the carer does not get a break. We shall seek to provide respite in a more acceptable way. That is the philosophy that the Diana nursing teams will seek to follow. For example, we seek to allow parents the opportunity to attend parents' evenings for their other children, secure in the knowledge that someone whom they trust is looking after the child who needs care in their own home. I believe there are much more flexible ways in which we can provide that kind of help.
I accept the need for training of carers which was mentioned. This links in with the point about identification. If a general practitioner knows only about
34
a patient and not about his or her family circumstances, and does not know therefore that the patient's carer needs advice or training, for example, on lifting, that advice or training will not be made available. I hope that the clear lead in the national priorities guidance will make people focus on that point. I believe that in the past some of the discharge arrangements have not focused on assessing carers' needs as well as the need for adaptations in the home; for example, when someone is discharged from hospital. We need to adopt a different philosophy that encompasses the needs of carers.
I was asked about the New Deal. We shall certainly consider the best ways of assisting carers to return to work. I am afraid that I have lost my place in my brief and I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point. Carer-friendly employment policies will need to become an integral part of our policies to encourage family friendly employment. Our strategy is to promote good practice in that regard. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for welcoming the respite breaks publication which accompanies the report. That document shows how this measure can be provided.
As to pensions, we should not undervalue the importance of the new entitlement to a second pension. In the nature of pension provisions, it takes time to build up. Carers are particularly vulnerable as regards not building up a pension entitlement because of the interruption of their employment during times of caring. That can be exacerbated for women who become carers after a period of interrupted employment bit the purpose of being at home to look after children. In the long term, it is very important that we ensure that the thousands of carers who have to take a break from employment benefit from these proposals.
In the short term, from April 1999 the Government will introduce a minimum income guarantee for the poorest carers, who will receive a minimum of £75 a week through income support. Very clearly, in all areas of health policy, social security and taxation, our duty is to provide support to the very poorest.
I take the point that the £140 million of the special carers grant will not solve all the problems or provide a vast array of services for every carer in the country. We want the grant to stimulate more conceited action by local authorities, working closely with the health service, to systematically identify the needs of carers in the locality; to draw up plans to meet those needs; to ensure that the provisions offer much greater diversity and flexibility than the existing provisions; and to systematically involve carers and carers' organisations in their planning and implementation. If we put in place that framework, we will have done an enormous amount on which to build.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I declare an interest. For many years I have been associated wilh a voluntary organisation operating in this field, Scottish Action on Dementia—SAD—which is an appropriate name. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on this very important and belated recognition of the debt we owe to carers in our society.

35
Recognising that health will be devolved in May of this year, I would ask the Minister whether similar legislation is anticipated for the provisions made in this Statement to apply in Scotland. That is terribly important.
I congratulate the Minister on her recognition of the role of the voluntary services. In the organisation to which I referred, we have a network of community groups in towns and villages in Scotland who perform voluntary services. They will be encouraged by the Statement. That is important because many of them lose heart when voluntary work goes unrecognised.
We have established in Stirling University a chair for carers, for training people to care. That is why I was glad to hear the reference to training. I hope that that outpost, which is difficult to maintain and finance, will continue to be recognised as a national training centre, not necessarily as a Scottish operation. Can the Minister give me some encouragement that the important principles in this valuable Statement will be extended to Scotland, despite the activities of devolution in the year ahead?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I am interested to hear about the work of Stirling University. I would be deeply disappointed if devolution meant an end to learning from each other in these areas. I am sure that we have much to learn from that centre. I shall ensure that we investigate ways in which the practices developed there can be spread.
The noble Lord will be reassured to know that in Scotland the commitments are being taken forward by an action plan to modernise community care, published in October. A key element of the plan is to provide £5 million additional money for respite, homecare and other services. The thrust of the policy described for England and Wales is very definitely being taken forward within Scotland.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I was about to give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in recognition of her valuable role. I am honoured to be the ward councillor representing the Carers National Association in my ward of Clerkenwell, Islington.
This is definitely a solid step forward in the recognition of the vital contribution of carers but, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, it obviously will not solve all the problems. The Minister has stressed that the ringfenced £140 million is just one aspect of the increased funding. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is that many local authorities are having to make severe cuts in social services. The additional funding is £20 million in 1999–2000. My local authority is having to cut £15 million from its budget, of which several million is for social services. Welfare advice agencies are also being cut. That will affect the advice given for claiming minimum income support.
36
Will the Minister keep up her efforts for greater funding? The reality on the ground, as experienced by carers, is that this is a mixed bag because of general cuts in social services. When the new legislation to extend the powers of local authorities to address carers' needs is introduced, will the Minister ensure that the money to implement those powers is available; otherwise, instead of greater hope for carers, it could lead to some disillusionment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness says. Of course it is very important. Resources are essential—and everyone wants to see greater resources—but an issue like the new legislation, which establishes the principle that carers will be entitled to help in their own right, is a very important one. It is very significant for individuals and organisations working in this field.
It is tremendously important to recognise that sometimes we can do things by having more flexibility without spending extra money. For example, it might be better for a carer who wants to go out for three hours to attend evening classes to receive money for a taxi home. That avoids the need for someone to be in the home for four hours because of a longer journey time. At the moment, a local authority can only provide the service to the people who need it, not to the carer—so we are not always talking about extra money.
The £140 million will be ring-fenced. In the package we are bringing together—on the housing front; on the proposals for family friendly policies; in recognising the needs of carers who are in employment; and particularly in the proposals for young carers in respect of their educational needs—we recognise the burdens that carers carry. This is a tremendously important area, not necessarily hugely expensive, but one that can make an awful lot of difference to their lives.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the person who introduced the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-Term Breaks) Bill into your Lordships' House during the term of the previous government, which was supported by all sides of the House, including of course the current Government, I have three brief questions. First, will the legislation to be introduced place a statutory obligation on local authorities to ensure that carers' needs are assessed and that assessment takes account of both the needs of the disabled person and the carer in regard to respite care and short-term breaks? The Minister may notice that I am holding in my hand a booklet published this month by MENCAP and entitled Fully Charged: How Local Authority Charging Is Harming People With A Learning Disability. That leads me to my next question. Is the Minister aware that a number of local authorities charge for respite care for children with learning and other disabilities? Therefore, will the new funding put a stop to this practice and enable parents to make full use of the breaks which are to be offered to them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our approach, which is different from that taken by the Bill with which the noble Lord was associated, is very much one of

37
supporting the principles that exist in community care and children's legislation. Our approach will mean that proper attention will be paid to carers' needs so that services can be provided directly to both the carer and the person for whom he or she is caring. The noble Lord asked about charging and referred to what is going on in some areas. We shall have to look at that in some detail when we see what specific schemes are introduced under the grant proposals. I hope that we will be able to provide a great deal of what the noble Lord is looking for in terms of more flexible support for carers and the people they care for, often in their own homes, and a greater availability of respite care. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on some of the detail.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have a very severely handicapped daughter—she is mentally and physically handicapped—and like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I was chairman of MENCAP. I have not yet had the advantage of seeing the Statement. When I heard it, I welcomed it. If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, deserves credit for the very caring way in which she deals with these matters when they come before your Lordships.
I do not know how far the Statement goes in providing for those cases where the family can no longer provide care. That arises when the parents are either too old or die—or one of them dies—or when the child is so severely handicapped that he or she could not be looked after at home. If the Statement does not go that far, I wonder whether, before long, the Government will issue a statement about the help that can be given to village communities, which have a great advantage, and to those living in the community who are not so severely disabled that they could live in a small home and perhaps go out to work. Those are the two most important ways of looking after handicapped or disabled people when they can no longer be looked after at home.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I know of his long-standing concern in this area. The issue of village communities has been discussed! in your Lordships' House before. I know that my honourable friend John Hutton, who has responsibility for this area, met representatives of the movement to encourage village communities. He is well aware of the feeling that a range of provision needs to he available to people with learning disabilities. I recognise that in some areas there is a feeling that this is the most appropriate form of provision. I recognise the anxiety that parents often feel about their ability to cope in the future as handicapped children grow older and about what will happen to them when they are not there and able to cope. It is part of the long-term planning responsibilities of social services departments to ensure that provision is available after the caring is no longer done by the carer. There is a responsibility for doing that planning—not imposing sudden change, which can be very disruptive, but involving carers in discussing long-term plans before they are needed.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will understand what a happy day this is
38
for me. As she said, the Statement and initiative will not solve every problem of every carer but in my view it ranks with the introduction of the invalid care allowance and with the passing of the Carers Act in the history of the carers' movement. Perhaps I may he permitted to add my congratulations to all those who have been involved and also my thanks to Members of your Lordships' House on all sides who have always been so supportive of the carers' issue.
Does my noble friend agree that this marks the passage of carers from the margins to the mainstream of social and health policy? Does she further agree that how we monitor and evaluate the allocation of specific sums of money to local authorities is important in ensuring the best possible value for carers and ensuring that the needs of all groups of carers, including not just young carers and parent carers but the needs of carers from minority ethnic communities, are not overlooked?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has had a chance to speak on this subject. It would have been deeply ironic had she not, given her immense personal contribution to the cause of carers in this country. She demonstrated some of the vision that has made her such an effective campaigner by focusing not on "this sum of money" or "that sum of money" but on how we transform the way in which we think about carers and how we integrate their needs into the planning of health and social services. I very much take her point that we need to monitor and evaluate. Whatever money we spend, we want to ensure that it is spent effectively. The Statement refers in particular to the needs of young carers, but my noble friend is right to remind us that carers and the people for whom they care are a diverse group. They may include short-term carers and long-term carers; there may be people who have a physical disability or a mental illness; and there may be people with very specific needs because of the ethnic group from which they come or for a variety of other reasons. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we push down to local level the responsibility for ensuring that local plans are sensitive to the needs of local communities.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest as the honorary president of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, and also as the father of a mentally handicapped child. I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on this initiative and in welcoming these papers. I particularly welcome the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Renton.
As there are a few minutes left on the clock, I thought it might be in order to underline the seriousness of the situation which affects particularly mentally handicapped people; that is, people with leaning disabilities and severe learning disabilities in this country, of whom there are about 156,000, a large proportion of whom still live with their families. The problem is well set out on page 18. We see that 27 per cent. of all carers are already over 65. Therefore, the problem, exacerbated as it is by "the bulge" and other

39
factors, is getting worse. The noble Baroness suggested leaving this problem to social services at local level. But in order to encourage village communities in the way my noble friend suggested I fear the Government will have to put a little pressure on those social services at local level. Encouraging village communities is one option that is available in future. There is already acknowledged to be a shortage of 25, 000 residential beds for mentally handicapped people, and that number is still rising. Therefore, my only question to the Minister is: will she please feel able to exert a little pressure from the centre at local level, because the whole concept of village communities is, I am afraid, still resisted at local level and does not fit with the Government's laudable intentions of choice and opportunity for this very vulnerable section of society?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I note with care what the noble Lord says on this issue. As ever, we must strike the right balance between national policy and local sensitivity to local needs. If I inadvertently gave the impression that the responsibility lay solely with social services at local level, that is not correct. The national priorities guidance spells out clearly the shared priority between health and social services in this area. The carers strategy goes sufficiently wide to show a recognition that there are many other areas of government which also need to be brought in if we are to provide the range of services and facilities that are needed by carers and their dependants.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 37.
[Amendments Nos. 109A to 111 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 28, line 19, after ("behaviour") insert ("or any medical history in relation to mental disorder").
The noble Lord said: Chapter III deals with the protection of complainants in proceedings for sexual offences. This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 123 and 126. To save time, perhaps I may speak to all three.
I have been associated with a number of mental health charities and I wish to express their concern. Clause 40 places restrictions on evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual history in the case of sexual offences. I believe that the same protection should be afforded to evidence or questions about a complainant's history of mental health problems. Such questions can be used to prejudice the jury against a witness and attack that witness's credibility and character. Amendments Nos. 112 and 123 seek to introduce restrictions so as
40
to avoid such situations. It should be stressed that this provision relates to the protection of a victim of rape or sexual assault who has a history of mental health problems against the defence attempting to use questions about his or her mental stability or to attack his or her credibility and character.
Cases have been brought to my attention where general evidence of a complainant's history of mental health problems has been used to undermine her credibility as a witness without any reference to her mental state at the time of the incident. These amendments are designed to prevent the introduction of this type of evidence unless it is related directly to events at the time of the alleged offence.
Amendment No. 126 would add an additional sub-paragraph to make it clear that,
"'mental disorder' means mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983".
I beg to move.
Lord Desai: I support the amendment. I apologise to the Committee; I did not speak at Second Reading and rise to speak only to Clause 40. The clause is crucial; however, there are problems. One problem, as pointed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, relates to the evidence that a complainant is asked to present in relation to her history.
The amendment concentrates only on mental history. It is right that there should be restrictions on the kind of evidence that is presented. Because the question of mental stability and instability is delicate, especially in relation to the issue of rape, where the person's mental state may be delicate anyway if he or she is being attacked, it is important to guard the rights of the complainant. Therefore, whatever care can be taken to protect the rights of the complainant is to be welcomed. Therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I, too, support the intention behind my noble friend's amendments. As he said, Amendment No. 112 would amend subsection (1) of Clause 40 to prevent questions about any medical history in relation to mental disorder being put without the leave of the court. I support that intention. However, I have some concern about the wording.
The amendments are not wide enough to prevent a woman complainant from being asked, for example, whether she has ever had an abortion. It is important to restrict a defendant's access to an alleged rape victim's medical and therapeutic records, but that has to be done with sensitivity and balance.
There was a notorious case in Canada in which a bishop brought into open court the counselling records of the women whom he was found to have raped. In 1997 the Canadian Parliament enacted amendments to the Canadian criminal code to restrict a defendant's access to records of that kind by requiring a specific application to be made to the judge for access. The judge is then required to consider a specific series of factors which balance the accused's ability to make full answer and defence and the victim's right to personal privacy and equality of treatment.

41
I mention that at this stage because, whatever the Government's attitude may be to my noble friend's amendments, it seems to me that a provision along those lines might well be worth further consideration at a later stage during the Bill's passage.
Lord Monson: Of course, we must heed complainants' rights, but we must also pay attention to defendants' rights. Surely, Amendment No. 112, even as qualified by Amendment No. 123, loads the dice excessively against the defendant. After all, there have always been individuals who are mentally unbalanced in some way, who have a long history of making serious false allegations against totally innocent strangers or even totally innocent acquaintances. I submit that if Amendment No. 112 is agreed to, those innocent individuals may be put at risk.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with the intention behind this amendment as described by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Lester. The complainants are lot on trial and their lives should not be combed through to find some detail that the jury might take into account unless it is strictly relevant.
Evidence that a complainant has or has had a mental disorder can already be excluded by the court if the court thinks it is irrelevant to the issues at trial. If the mental condition has been short-lived or adequately controlled and there is no medical reason to believe that it was relevant, then prosecutors should not be reluctant to let the court decide on admissibility.
The amendments go further. They would have the effect of making mental disorder irrelevant in law to the defence of consent, unless specific evidence of disorder at the time of the alleged offence could be produced.
I sympathise with the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but mental illness is not always irrelevant and a witness's mental state can be relevant to whether he or she imagined that an offence took place or whether he or she is deliberately making a false allegation. In certain cases, the state of mind thereafter—in other words after the offence—and at time of trial may well he relevant.
The clause would need to be widened to cover abortions and so on, which is the specific point raised. I have a good deal of sympathy with the protection that ought to be given. I think I can be helpful to the noble Lord. One of the real complaints at the moment is that some defence lawyers embark on "fishing expeditions"—and this is a mischief of which I have knowledge—to obtain documents from third parties such as doctors or hospitals. That is becoming a considerable concern.
The comfort I think I can give to the noble Lord is that Section 66 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 introduced new provisions for issuing witness summonses to attend the Crown Court. That is intended to help deal with the problem. Section 66 will be brought into force this spring. It means that there will have to be a witness summons issued on application to the court. The application would have to be justified, specific and timely. At that stage,
42
the third party—perhaps the doctor or the other professional adviser or the hospital—could contest the application, if necessary, should the court think it appropriate, on the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant.
That ought to be some comfort to the noble Lord because most of those lines of cross-examination are developed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated, by having sight of the records and then developing the line of cross-examination. If you have to justify your reason for having the records brought to court, the provision ought to be a useful constraint on the abuse of some of those lines of questioning. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 28, leave out line 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment, together with Amendment No. 116, is directed towards maintaining the status quo in relation to restrictions on evidence at trials for rape. I remind the Committee of the status quo on the subject. The Heilbron Committee produced recommendations for legislation which were accepted. They are to be found in Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 which states in subsection (1):
"If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a cape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than the defendant.
(2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant: and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied: hat it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked".
I respectfully disagreed with the proposition put forward by the Minister during the Second Reading of the Bill which is now before us. At column 1238 of Hansard for 15th December 1998 he said
"I know that some of your Lordships, and some outside this House, have misgivings about some aspects of the provisions"—
that is, the provisions we are discussing.
"The Bill does not exclude all evidence of previous sexual behaviour, only irrelevant evidence. Taking rape as an obvious example, a complainant's previous sexual behaviour, whether one of wild abandon, tedium or total abstinence, is simply not relevant to the question of whether there was consent on the occasion in point; nor should it render a complainant less worthy of belie or less deserving of the protection of the law".
With great respect, that just is not right. Of course it is relevant. Credibility where the issue is who is to be believed—the complainant or the defendant—goes to a serious aspect of the whole case. That was made clear by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in the same debate on 15th December 1998 at column 1272 of Hansard. He said:

43
"The simple truth is that on an issue of whether a complainant consented to sexual relations with the defendant, the fact that the complainant has behaved promiscuously on other occasions outside the window of 24 hours before and after the commission of the offence may well—I emphasise 'may well'—"be relevant. So, to recognise is not to open the door to abusive, insulting, irrelevant cross-questioning, which, in any event, is likely to repel any decent modern jury, but to recognise what many sensible decent jurors would consider a question that may be relevant in some cases".
I turn to one of the leading cases on the subject, R. v. Brown in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal made it clear that if the questioning related to conduct which was merely relevant to credibility, then it would probably be disallowed. The crux of the matter is to be found on page 101 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal
"The real inquiry is whether on the facts of the particular case the complainant's attitude to sexual relations could be material upon which in these days a jury could reasonably rely to conclude that the complainant may indeed have consented to the sexual intercourse on the material occasion, despite her evidence to the contrary. It is in every case a question of degree".
That is why the Act reads in the terms to which I have drawn the Committee's attention.
It is my respectful submission that the law as set out in the statute is wholly adequate and does not need to be played around with. For the legislature to say that something that is potentially relevant, and therefore should be considered by a jury, is not to be put before the jury is a terribly serious step. If it is not put before the jury it may well be that had the jury had the material it might have reached a state of doubt which obliged it to acquit. What is happening here is that the discretion is to be removed from the court and in its place one has the absolute words of Clause 40. It is always a dangerous matter for the legislature to remove judicial discretion. We had experience of it in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which placed judges in a straightjacket when sentencing, with the result that not long after that Act came into force amending legislation had to be introduced. Accordingly, I move that these clauses be dealt with in the manner that I have suggested.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 113 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 114.
Baroness Mallalieu: Amendment No. 125 standing in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is grouped with these amendments. Perhaps I may speak to that amendment at this stage. Its purpose is simply to give to English and Welsh judges the same limited discretion as their Scottish counterparts were given when this aspect of the law was reviewed in Scotland in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; namely, if the court considers that the evidence or question is necessary in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial it may give leave. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that the judiciary here enjoys no lesser parliamentary confidence in exercising a very limited and carefully prescribed discretion than its Scottish counterpart.
44
The starting point for consideration of Clause 40, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, is whether it is necessary to change the law to restrict questions about a complainant's sexual history over and above the very considerable constraints that now exist. One's answer to that question depends on one's particular standpoint. Those who deal with individuals who allege that they are the victims of sexual offences see the matter from one clear and, in my view, extreme viewpoint. Women Against Rape for example believes that evidence of a woman's sexual history with a man other than the defendant should never be allowed with no exceptions. If one asks those who have given evidence as complainants in a sex case it is scarcely surprising if they, too, say that the questioning goes too far. When young I gave evidence as a complainant in court in relation to a sexual offence, which fortunately was not a serious one. I was cross-examined. I readily appreciate how vulnerable such witnesses feel and that virtually any question that challenges the evidence that is given will appear to be intrusive and excessive.
But I hope that as a result of nearly 30 years of both prosecuting and defending in these cases in the courts I can now view these matters from both sides. The reality is that not all complainants tell the truth. Questions that are merely designed to embarrass, humiliate or blacken the complainant in the eyes of a jury must never be permitted to be asked, but relevant questions that are necessary to ensure justice is done must continue to be permitted. It must be right that no one's best interests are served by wrong convictions, least of all those who are genuine victims, because when miscarriages of justice come to light, as they sometimes do, juries thereafter are even more reluctant to convict in cases where a conviction may well be more than justified.
In practice today in order to ask such questions of a witness in a sexual case it is necessary in the absence of the jury and the complainant for the judge to be convinced that the questions one proposes to ask, which one must outline, are relevant and necessary before the judge gives consent. In doing so the judge will clearly define the limits of his permission. In my personal experience such applications are not made nor is permission given lightly. Although this is a field of work in which I am engaged week in and week out I have no personal experience since the passing of the 1976 Act to which the noble and learned Lord referred of the law either not being complied with by a judge or being abused by counsel after leave has been given. I did have such experience before that date.
I have read and re-read many times Clause 40. I am still puzzled as to the extent of changes in the law that it makes. It claims to introduce a new restriction on evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual history. It does so against the background of the present law that the noble and learned Lord summarised a moment or two ago. I believe that at an earlier stage the Minister took the view that there was already adequate discretion given to the court under Clause 40 as presently drafted.
Perhaps I may consider the discretion that the clause gives as it stands. I believe that there are four separate headings. First, if the issue is not consent and to refuse

45
permission to ask the question or give the evidence may make the verdict unsafe, then that evidence or question is permissible, subject to the judge ruling that it is relevant and necessary. Secondly, if the issue is whether the accused believed that the complainant consented under Clause 41 the evidence is permissible, subject again to the judge being satisfied. Thirdly, if the issue is consent and the sexual behaviour about which the questions are to be asked happened within 24 hours either before or after the event, and to refuse to allow those questions may render the verdict unsafe, the evidence is permissible. Fourthly, if the issue is consent, and the evidence to be adduced relates to evidence called by the prosecution about the complainant's sexual behaviour, and in the opinion of the court goes no further than rebutting or explaining that evidence on behalf of the accused, it is permissible.
When the Minister and his officials from the Home Office kindly met those noble Lords who were interested in the Bill before Second Reading to explain the Bill, a number of examples were put to him by noble Lords of facts which gave rise to concern. In each case the Minister reassured us by saying that on those facts one or other of those discretions would apply, and such questioning could be permitted. When the Minister deals with the amendments, will he give us an example of a question which is currently permitted under the present law? I refer, for example. to relevant evidence going to the issue of consent which, in the opinion of the judge, it would be unfair not to allow to be asked and which would be excluded by the proposed legislation. If there is no such example, what does this clause achieve? If there are examples of evidence which is relevant to the issue of consent, and which it would be unfair to the defence to exclude and which may now be excluded under this clause, h DW can it be in the interests of justice for the clause to stand unamended and not contain some further discretion?
I ask the Minister to consider a hypothetical example and to advise me and the Committee whether at present Clause 40 as drafted would exclude questioning and evidence about these matters. A prosecution is mounted against the defendant, the allegation being that he has met the complainant at a party, followed her to her home, climbed in through an upstairs balcony and raped her. The defendant says that at the party where he agrees they met, she invited him to re-enact the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet. He says that he indeed followed her home, climbed in and consensual sex took place between them. Subsequently, but prior to the trial, evidence comes into the possession of the defence that the week before, and again the week after but outside the 24-hour period. the same lady met another young man at a party, on each occasion inviting him back to her house in identical circumstances, where consensual sex has taken place with each young man on each occasion. The evidence goes to the issue of consent, not to whether the defendant thought that she consented because he was wholly unaware of either of those incidents at the time of the act in relation to which he is charged.
46
The evidence does not appear to me to rebut the evidence of the Crown that the complainant did not consent on the night in question or explain that evidence. Yet that evidence might be thought, I venture to suggest by most right thinking people, to put a very different light on the events which would be highly relevant to the jury's verdict. To reach the right verdict, the jury might well be assisted by having the full picture.
If I am wrong in my interpretation of Clause 40, and such evidence would be admissible subject to the judge being satisfied under this clause, I should be grateful if that were so and more than happy to be corrected. But if I am right, surely the judge should have a wider discretion than Clause 40 gives at present.
Further, the difficulty that we in this Chamber and those in another place have when considering legislation of this kind is that we cannot anticipate all possible factual situations which may arise. Hard cases make bad law. That is a cliché, but it is so often the truth. Recently I had experience in the courts of seeing legislation passed by this House less than two years ago operating in a way which I believe we never contemplated, and as a result obliging the court to impose a mandatory life sentence in circumstances which I suspect we never considered would give rise to such a sentence. After reading it many times, I am not sure whether Clause 40 is draconian or meaningless, but I suspect it to be the former.
Amendment No. 12:5 is a modest proposal. I ask the Minister to give it careful and favourable consideration. If he cannot do so, I should be grateful to know why he considers that a distinction should be made between Scotland and the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall speak in relation to the group of amendments as a whole, some of which are, in the words of the noble and learned Lord., Lord Ackner, designed to preserve the status quo.
I begin by saying something about the mischief with which the clause is designed to deal. There is a myth, which can operate in courtrooms during rape trials. It is a myth which results in questions posed to a victim of rape which essentially make that victim feel that she is the one on trial. It is a myth which results in a great deal of injustice and inequality, with great respect to the: noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken.
The myth, based upon a stereotyped prejudice, is that unchaste women lie about sex. The consequence of that myth in some rape trials is a slew of improper, irrelevant and inappropriate questions posed by the defence about a rape victim's past sexual practices, past sexual partners and past medical history, even asking whether the woman has ever had an abortion. I ask myself: what possible relevance can such questions have other than to play on prejudices and myths? It is the same as allowing evidence of an accused's past convictions to go before a jury, and yet such evidence is barred because of its highly prejudicial nature.

47
Because a victim's past sexual behaviour normally has little probative value to the issue of consent, I support the Government's proposals in Chapter III. The objective behind the proposals is not new. As the law stands now, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, explained, we have Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 which codifies the recommendation by the Heilbron Committee that the admission of sexual history evidence in rape trials should be the exception rather than the rule. But Section 2 relies on judges to decide whether and when such evidence should be excluded. As Professor Temkin of Sussex University has pointed out in her careful study of Section 2 (published in the 1993 Criminal Law Review at pages 3 to 20), which I have carefully read, the direction given to trial judges by the Court of Appeal has been to admit rather than exclude such evidence in particular on the issue of consent rather on the lines of the thinking in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. But consent by its very nature is to a person and not a circumstance. As Dame Rose Heilbron pointed out as long ago as 1975, evidence of a woman's sexual experiences with partners of her own choice is not indicative of a general willingness to consent.
Pace the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—with great respect and friendship Clause 40 does not remove judicial discretion. It builds on Section 2. Its provisions seek to structure, guide and narrow the discretion exercised by a judge in deciding when a victim may be questioned about her sexual behaviour. There is no absolute bar on such evidence of the kind advocated by Women Against Rape. I wholly share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that that kind of extreme position would be contrary to the interests of justice and to other fair trials. But the structure proposed in Clause 40 provides for a limited number of grounds of admissibility, thereby preventing the prejudice which occurs when such evidence is admitted for inappropriate reasons.
There will, essentially, be three grounds. The first, in Clause 40(3)(a), is if the evidence relates to any issue which has to be proved in the case other than an issue as to whether the complainant consented. The second, in Clause 40(3)(b), is if the evidence relates to the issue of consent and the evidence relates to behaviour within 24 hours of the offence. I am not keen on the 24-hour arbitrary limit, but that is a side issue in relation to this group of amendments. The third, in Clause 40(5), is if the evidence is intended to dispute evidence that the prosecution has introduced about the complainant's sexual behaviour. There is also an additional requirement imposed on the court to consider whether refusing admissibility would render a jury's or magistrate's conclusion on a relevant issue unsafe. Clause 40 creates no new additional bar to the admissibility of evidence of the complainant's sexual history if the evidence relates to the defendant's belief that she had consented. The limited discretion operates in relation to the issue of consent itself, but not the issue of the defendant's belief.
48
The provisions are well structured, carefully balanced and fair to both the accused and the witness. Those opposed to these provisions appear to argue that they would offend an accused's rights to a fair trial. We have not been given practical examples of exactly how the unfairness is said to result or likely to result from this clause. I leave it to the Minister to deal with the extreme hypothetical and curious examples put by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene.
The Supreme Courts in both Canada and the United States have confirmed that so-called "rape-shield provisions" do not automatically offend the right to a fair trial. And there are rape-shield provisions in Australia and New Zealand, all recognising the need to balance an accused's right to a fair trial with a victim's right to fairness, dignity and respect.
The Canadian provisions are a good example of balance, drafted with an input from the Supreme Court, women's groups and civil liberties groups, and eventually passing through the Canadian Parliament with all-party consent. To date, those provisions have survived constitutional challenge, and I am pleased to note that there is some similarity in approach between the Canadian provisions, drafted with an input from the Canadian Supreme Court, and those proposed in Clause 40. I believe that we should support these provisions on the grounds of fairness, justice and equal treatment for women in our courtrooms.
Opponents argue that they are unnecessary because the trial judge will ensure that only necessary and relevant cross-examination takes place. I have no experience as a criminal advocate nor of trying rape cases because I was only a humble Assistant Recorder and Recorder for a decade. However, I can say that until some five years ago I used to participate regularly at interviews with officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department of candidates for judicial office as Assistant Recorders. What we found again and again was that relatively senior members of the criminal Bar had a loose approach to what was and was not permissible in this area. That was despite judicial guidance, and it convinced me that legislative principles and rules are appropriate and necessary.
I do not blame those practitioners for that loose approach. I say with great respect and deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who is in his place and will no doubt speak about these issues, that if one looks at the case law of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division one sees that it is loose in its guidance and does not treat the matter with the strictness that is required not only in the interests of justice but also in the wider interests of protecting witnesses in the way I have described. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment tabled by the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Ackner, and any other amendments which are designed to preserve the status quo.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may put another point of view. I have no civil liberties brief and,

49
unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in my early days I had considerable experience of rape cases on the western circuit. I shall be brief.
Let us start at the beginning. The purpose of the clause is to narrow judicial discretion. There can be no justification whatever for seeking to do that unless the extant law is either unsatisfactory or is not honoured by observance in practice. I speak with deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Subject to what he may say, the extant law is, in my opinion, satisfactory and it is honoured in practice.
One comes to the pivotal point, which is relevancy. Apparently, the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and all the civil liberties paraphernalia, take the view that the attitude to sexual relationships has no relevance whatever and therefore should not be before the jury. I take the totally opposite view, which has been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and wholly accords with my experience, although it was some years ago and before the 1976 Act.
It is a question of degree. There is a strong onus on anyone who wishes to change the existing law because, according to the views that have been expressed by those who have considerable experience in this sphere since the 1976 Act, these matters are relevant to the consideration of the jury. What one is doing is to deprive the jury of relevant considerations and I believe that to be wholly unacceptable.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill freely admits that he has no experience of rape cases. With respect to him, he operates on the higher plane of human rights. When he referred to the tape-shield provisions which have developed in other jurisdictions under their Bills or Charters of Rights, he overlooked the fact that the expression he used—the balancing of justice to the accused and fairness to and protection of the complainant—was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, a former Lord Chief Justice, in the case of Fenlon in 1980 when he said in terms that in deciding whether to allow cross-examination under Section 2(2) of the Act,
"the court must balance justice to the accused and fairness to and protection of the complainant".
That balancing act, to be performed by the judge, is part of our criminal law, whether or not there is a Bill or Charter of Rights in existence.
My noble friend referred also to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal. That guidance has been on the interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act: 1976 which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. pointed out, reads as follows
"The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked".
50
That provision was considered in the case of Lawrence which was reported in the [1977] Criminal Law Report 492, a decision of Mr. Justice May who said
"The important part of the statute which I think needs construction are the words 'if and only if he [the judge] is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked'. And, in my judgment, before a judge is satisfied or may be said to be satisfied that to refuse to allow a particular question or a series of questions in cross-examination would he unfair to a defendant he must take the view that it is more likely than not that the particular question or line of cross-examination, allowed, might reasonably lead the j an', properly directed in the summing up, to take a different view of the complainant's evidence from that which they might take if the question or series of questions was or were not allowed".
That approach was approved by the Court of Appeal in the case of Viola in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said
"The first question whim the judge must ask himself is whether the questions proposed are relevant according to the ordinary common-law rules of evidence, and relevant to the case as it is being put. If they are not so relevant, that is the end of the matter … If the questions are relevant, whether they should be allowed or not depends on the terms of s.2, which limits the admissibility of relevant evidence … It is for the judge to apply the dictum of May J in Lawrence … to the particular facts of the case".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, went on to say
"The 1976 Act was aimed primarily at protecting complainants from cross-examination as to credit, from questions which went merely to credit and no more. The result is that, generally speaking, if the proposed questions merely seek to establish that the complainant has had sexual experience with other men to whom she was not married, so as to suggest for that reason she ought not to be believed under oath, the judge will exclude the evidence. On the other hand, if the questions are relevant to an issue in the trial in the light of the way the case is being defended, for instance relevant to the issue of consent, as opposed merely to credit, they are likely to be admitted, because to exclude such a relevant question will usually mean that the jury are being prevented from hearing something which, if they did hear it, might cause them to change their minds about the evidence given by the complainant".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Does my noble friend agree or disagree with the conclusion reached by Professor Temkin in her study of all those cases in the Criminal Law Review, to which I have referred, where she concludes that the willingness of the Court of Appeal to see a wide range of evidence as of relevance to consent means that trial judges who refuse to allow in sexual history evidence do so at some considerable risk of a quashed conviction on appeal?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If the Court of Appeal quashes the conviction, it seems to me that justice has been done. My experience is—as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—that it is extremely difficult for such questions to be put. Before they can be put, the Court of Appeal also gives this guidance that
"No application for leave to cross-examine … can properly be made unless defence counsel has instructions which provide reasonable grounds for making the assertion he wishes to make".
Therefore, the first safeguard is that counsel must have instructions with reasonable grounds.
The second safeguard is in the rules of the Bar which state that counsel,

51
"must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify, insult or annoy either a witness or some other person",
and further that,
"It is a responsibility of a barrister, especially when the witness is nervous, vulnerable and apparently the victim of criminal or similar conduct, to ensure that those facing unfamiliar procedures are put as much at ease as possible".
Therefore, upon defending counsel, there are professional requirements which he must obey as well as requirements and guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal.
I turn to the provisions set out in Clause 40. My first comment—and I shall make a number of separate comments—is in relation to subsection (2)(b),
"that a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case".
The test of whether the conviction or conclusion is unsafe is that which applies to the Court of Appeal. In my view, it is wrong to introduce the concept of whether something is rendered unsafe into the discretion of the trial judge. The phrase that has been used in the existing legislation and expanded upon by the Court of Appeal that the judge must consider whether there is unfairness to the accused is a far better test.
My second comment is in relation to subsection (3)(a) and (b). It would seem that it is possible in the discretion of the judge for questions to be asked about the sexual history of the complainant if the issue is not an issue of consent; that is, if the issue is a belief in consent. It seems to me that there is a contradiction here because in almost every case where the defence is one of consent, there will be an additional defence that, even if the complainant did not consent, the defendant reasonably believed that she did consent. The two defences almost invariably run together. Indeed, I cannot imagine a situation where they could not run together.
In that eventuality, it would seem that under subsection (3)(a), the previous sexual history of the complainant, provided that it is relevant, can, with the leave of the judge, be explored in that particular case. There are other criticisms which I have to make of this particular clause, but I have already gone on for far too long and I shall leave it to others.
Lord Desai: I am not a lawyer. I am the first non-lawyer to speak on this question. Having heard many lawyers, I am somewhat confused as to what is the issue, so I shall start by stating what I believe should be the case.
As far as I understand it, the status quo, as it is, is not satisfactory but the clause makes the case worse rather than better. That is my understanding. I believe that in a case of rape, the sexual history of the woman should be totally irrelevant and should not be asked about. That is the first principle that I want to state.
Even the 24-hour rule should be admissible only if the other party is the defendant but not otherwise. So in relation to the case cited by my noble friend, even if the lady in question practised the balcony scene every night or every four hours, it should not concern the court.
52
I read with great admiration a lot of literature which feminists write. I know that there is much dissatisfaction about the rape issue among women. There is dissatisfaction with the legislature that rape is somehow considered to be like other offences, whereas many believe—perhaps in an extreme way, but genuinely—that it is more akin to murder than not. And a murdered person's previous history is not relevant as to whether or not he was murdered.
I know that I am being extreme, but that is my role in life. I feel that at present I am inclined to side with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He at least wants to preserve the status quo. In as much as Clause 40 does not go in the opposite direction of removing such discretion as the judge has, I have to live with that. But Clause 40 goes the wrong way. It asks the judge to admit evidence which should not be admitted and therefore I shall be inclined to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has beaten me to the drum as the first non-lawyer to speak. But I am only the second woman to speak and want to say straight away that I am not a member of any extreme feminist group, though I am a member of several respectable ones. And I do not take everything that is said by some of them as the word that I have to follow.
I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with all the deference and interest with which I always listen to him. To begin with I felt that he made a lot of sense. But as an ordinary lay person, as he went on—particularly when he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—I gained the clear impression that the issue of consent could be adduced to some extent by introducing evidence of a complainant's past history. If that is so, one could never support a prostitute who claimed to have been raped, yet I am sure that prostitutes can be raped. We could never convict anybody who raped a promiscuous woman because that evidence would be against her character, yet I am sure that there are women who have a number of sexual partners and who can be raped. Finally, it would be extremely difficult to convict a husband of raping his wife, yet husbands can and do rape their wives.
For those reasons, unless I hear something dramatic and convincing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, if he intends to speak, I support the line taken by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Baroness Ludford: I may as well venture where my noble friend Lady Thomas does not dare to tread. As a qualified barrister but one who has never practised I do not profess to possess the knowledge of some of my noble friends.
I listened with interest to the debate between my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I start from the point of view that the status quo is not satisfactory. I was concerned by something said by my noble friend Lord Thomas. He

53
said that the existing test is that the judge has to decide whether it would be unfair to the defendant not to allow the evidence of previous sexual history. He quoted from the case of Lawrence in 1977 which had been interpreted as meaning that if the evidence was admitted it would lead the jury to take a different view.
That seems to me to meet the analogy drawn by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, where the point of excluding the previous convictions of a defendant is precisely to avoid a situation where the jury is likely to be prejudiced and draw the semi-automatic conclusion that, because the defendant committed every other burglary in the street, he must have committed this one.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am sure my noble friend will recall that witnesses can be cross-examined as to their convictions in any case, and a complainant is a witness.
Baroness Ludford: Notwithstanding that, my point stands. I believe that some tightening up of the existing status quo is necessary. Perhaps I may make a further small point. The position of Women Against Rape was alluded to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I understand that that organisation takes the view that evidence of previous sexual history with anyone other than the defendant should not be admitted. My noble friend Lord Lester also referred to that and said that it goes too far. I can appreciate that. However, I shall listen with interest Ca the Minister's reply.
It seems to me that greater care will need to be taken with evidence of previous sexual history with partners other than the defendant, particularly if the issue is one of consent. It is surely in that area that the problem lies; that is, the risk that the evidence that the complainant is promiscuous may somehow lead to the conclusion that she must have consented also on that occasion. Her previous history with the accused is surely more relevant—or that may be argued—than her previous history with people other than the accused. I shall listen with interest to see how the debate on this point develops.
Lord Warner: I had not intended to speak, but having listened to the debate on Clause 40 one cannot help but think that this sounds more like a debate in a legal club as to whether or not it should have its discretion fettered arid not whether it is more reasonable to balance better the rights of defendants and complainants.
Members of this Committee from time to time will have encountered the Government's interest in evidence-based practice. I have heard no one this afternoon respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in relation to research evidence on the extent to which people are putting into practice the Court of Appeal's guidance. On the strongly argued research evidence I feel that we should review the present situation and not adhere to the status quo.
Most lay people observing this territory have a strong perception that it is often open season in rape cases for lawyers to blacken the reputation of women in the hope that that will advance the cause of their client's defence.
54
I share the concern of tie noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we perpetuate that myth of the unchaste woman as evidence that consent was given in those cases.
I am sure that Members of the Committee who practise law consider in the cases with which they deal that the system works extremely well. But that is not the perception of the outside world. Clause 40 does not do anything to seriously reduce the rights of defendants in these cases; it simply narrows the discretion of the court and rebalances matters between the defendant and the complainant.
During the course of the debate I heard a number of what seemed to me to be slightly offside remarks in relation to civil liberties and human rights. But it is worth bearing in mind that we have now passed legislation in this country whereby we require Ministers to sign on the face of the Bill a certificate to indicate that the legislation conforms with the European Convention on Human Rights. I suggest that we stick to Clause 40 as it stands rather than trying to revert to the status quo.
Lord Milverton: I shall wait to hear what the Minister says on this difficult matter. I think that perhaps there is more readiness than not to accept what some women maintain; namely, that they have been raped. Often one reads of cases in the press in which it appears that women are not always taken seriously. It is suggested sometimes that perhaps they have encouraged the offence. However, I believe that there are occasions when a woman "has been done", to put it crudely, against her will. I like to believe that a great many women are decent and do not just say, "Here I am." At the same time, I think that perhaps we men are partly responsible. That goes back not just to Christian beliefs, but to other beliefs which uphold the dignity of a human body and of life. I shall be interested therefore to hear what the Minister says.
Perhaps some women may behave in the opposite way, equivalent to a man. However, I do not believe that the status quo is appropriate. Somehow, justice is needed for the many women who are clearly "done" against their will, but justice also needs to be done for men who may have been forced against their will. However, on the whole, I think that we men have a lot to answer for in the way in which some women are treated as regards rape.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I too had not intended to speak but various Members of the Committee have tempted me to do so. Perhaps I make take a specific example which may be stigmatised as far fetched, but I think it makes the point
Let us suppose that a defendant is charged with raping a complainant at 2 a.m. on New Year's Day. Let us suppose further that he is in a position to instruct counsel to ask these questions of the complainant: "Did you voluntarily have sexual relations with a different man, A, on Boxing Day? Did you voluntarily have sexual relations with a different man, B, on 27th December? Did you voluntarily have sexual

55
relations with a third man, C, on 28th December? Did you voluntarily have sexual relations with another man, D, on 29th December?"
As I understand the Bill, if the defendant's defence is one of consent—not reasonable belief, but consent—none of those questions could be asked, even if it was known that the answer to all of them would be "Yes". The reason for not permitting those questions is not that they are irrelevant. I suggest that no rational person would think that those questions were irrelevant. I also suggest that a reasonable juror could think that they were probative. By "probative" I do not mean "conclusive". They do not mean that the complaint is false; they just mean that it is something that a reasonable person would want to take into account in considering the truth of the complaint made and the defence to it. If such questions were not capable of being regarded as relevant and probative, we would not see the 24-hour window before and after the alleged offence for which the Bill provides.
Therefore, these are relevant questions, potentially; they are probative questions, potentially, but, if I understand the Bill correctly, the judge is not to be given any discretion to allow them to be asked unless the issue is not consent, but reasonable belief.
I suggest that that is not good sense. That is not a recipe for the good administration of justice. Although the Minister took issue when I said this the other evening, I suggest that we must at all costs avoid miscarriages of justice in this area as in every other. I am sure that Members of the Committee do not need reminding that the penalty for conviction of rape is a very heavy one. The courts have been responsive to the outrage that all decent segments of society feel at the commission of what is rightly described as an act of violence as well as of gross sexual violation. So let us not suppose that a count of rape is one that leads to no severe penalty; it leads to a very severe penalty indeed. That means that the need to ensure that somebody is truly guilty before he is convicted is ever stronger.
Some noble Lords have asked whether the law is now observed. The truth of the matter is that none of us really knows. Some of us have impressions, perhaps gained from the newspapers, one way; others have views, derived from research, the other way. I can contribute one piece of information for the Committee's consideration. When judges who try these cases attend, as they regularly do, the circuit level seminars on the conduct of these cases run by the Judicial Studies Board, the question that is always asked is whether the discretion is too lightly exercised in favour of the defence. The suggestion that it is greeted by the judges with a sense of outrage and disbelief. That confirms, I venture to suggest, what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with her enormous day-to-day experience, told the Committee.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the extremely guarded terms in which our amendment, Amendment No. 125, is framed. It states that such questions and evidence are to be allowed,
"if and to the extent that the court considers such evidence or question to be necessary".
56
It does not say "desirable" but "necessary"—the strongest word which could be used—and for what purpose,
"in the interests of justice"
which must be paramount,
"to ensure a fair trial of the accused".
I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the matter. I can see no good reason why any court should be deprived of a discretion as limited and closely circumscribed as that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Most of the amendments in this group, like the one outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, provide, in different formulations, a sort of override in the interests of justice. That, after all, is what the court is for. The underlying question before us is whether we, in Parliament, can, in framing legislation of this sort, judge better what is in the interests of justice than can the court at the time.
I am another non-lawyer contributing to this discussion. I do not for one moment under-estimate the traumatic effect of rape cases on the victims. The Minister did hint slightly that I might have done so on an earlier occasion. He also poked fun at Question Time recently at those of us who previously served in another place. It is part of the noble Lord's charm that he cannot resist a dig in the ribs when the opportunity is available. In over 20 years as a Member of another place one learns a great deal about lawyers and justice. It is a very regular feature of a Member of Parliament's surgery on Saturday morning or Friday evening to hear people complaining about their treatment in the courts and the outcome of legal proceedings. Over the years I have had to do my best to comfort, as best one can, distraught women and their relatives who have been on the receiving end, as they saw it, of attacks by lawyers in such cases. Such experiences make Members of another place—and I include myself during the time I was there—believe that something must be done.
But that is not always a good guide to action. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that we should not legislate on a matter of this kind because of public perception. We should legislate in the interests of justice, which can be a different matter. I also know of a case in my former constituency where I am as convinced as I can be that a young man was wrongly convicted of rape with absolutely appalling consequences for him and his future life. So I take very seriously what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said about miscarriages of justice. The court's job is to get at the truth, which is obviously extremely difficult.
That brings me back to the basic question as to whether we in Parliament can better judge than the court at the time what is in the interests of justice. As expected, there has been discussion this evening about consent and belief in consent. There is a distinction in the Bill in the way in which that evidence may be treated. It is a question of whether it goes to consent by the women or belief in consent by the man in a case. In its consultative paper of 1995 the Law Commission proposed changes in the law as regards belief in consent

57
being required. I see that it is the opinion of the Criminal Bar Association mat should the Law Commission's proposals become law it will significantly reduce the problem in the operation of subsection (2).
We understand that the Government are considering the views of the Law Commission on this matter and are likely to come forward before long with proposals. That affects very much the questions before us today. If the law on belief and consent in particular is to be altered, then maybe the proposed changes today should reflect that. It may be that they are not as necessary as they seem.
Another thought arising on the matter of consent and belief in consent is that sexual history is definitely relevant to a belief in consent. The defendant's knowledge of the complainant's sexual history is definitely relevant in many cases to his belief in consent and that will still be admissible. So even if we pass the Bill exactly as it stands there will still be a great deal of discussion in court about the sexual history of the complainant. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who said that the two issues of consent and belief in consent are deeply interwoven. In practically every case I believe that they are crucial to it. There are considerable difficulties in proceeding at this time with this amendment.
Amendment No. 117 goes particularly to the question of the 24-hour rule. It is an exceptionally crude device. One can envisage it leading to all kinds of awkward arguments about the exact time of day—or more likely the night—in which previous events took place. It is a question of whether something that happened the previous night is relevant or not to the woman's consent or the man's belief in that consent. That would only be admissible if the 24-hour rule were to apply. If the alleged rape was al 10 p.m. then something which the complainant did at 11 p.m. the previous evening would be admissible in court. But what she did at 9 p.m. would not be admissible in any circumstances. That does not appear to be a supportable proposition. No doubt the Minister will say that there is no magic about 24 hours and that one has to pick a time. I understand that. Quite obviously 12, 24 or 36 hours, or some other period of time, could have been chosen.
It is not the particular period of time that I complain of so much as the arbitrary nature of dropping on any fixed number of hours, whether 12, 24 or 36 hours. It seems to me that it chows that any fixed time test of this kind will not be satisfactory and will lead to all kinds of awkward arguments about the precise timing of other events relative to the time of the alleged offence.
These are difficult matters. Many of the legal profession, the judiciary and the public feel strongly about them. However, ultimately we have to try to make a judgment as to whether the courts should decide what evidence it is proper to bring out in the interests of justice rather than bowing to the clamour of those who have misunderstood proceedings as they take place at the moment. Clearly, complainants should be defended. But defendants have the right to have their interests override those of complainants as it is their freedom and they who are on trial. Therefore there remain great difficulties as regards the proposals in the clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, identifies the interesting question of whether the courts decide or, as we contend, Parliament should set a firmer structure. At the end of the day many of the contributions of Members of the Committee come down to that. When Parliament reaches a conclusion on that, I do not believe that it will be bowing to clamour. It will be paying attention to what has been said by many people over a number of years, not least having regard to the research to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. alluded.
I start from a pretty simple proposition. A woman's body is her own. It is not a plaything. A women's consent is her own. I: is her property. I believe that historically the way in which we have tried rape cases in this country, if not denying both those propositions, we have certainly paid insufficient heed to them. I have the greatest regard for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, and I do not say so on any cosmetic basis. However, I believe that they are wrong.
The noble and learned Lord said again and again that we must, at all costs, avoid miscarriages in this area. 1 did dissent from that on the last occasion, although I did not develop my dissent. Nevertheless, I shall do so this evening. In some jurisdictions it is not possible to convict of rape without the eye witness evidence of two male witnesses. If we want to go that way we will, at all costs, avoid miscarriages in the sense that the guilty will not be punished; but we will do no service to those who are legitimate, honest complainants. Therefore. with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I do not adopt his formulation.
The tone of the debate has been remarkably moderate. with different views being expressed, both conscientiously and honourably, because, as I readily concede, this is an extraordinarily difficult and sensitive, area. However, I should like to take up one point that was made. When the question was raised at sentencing seminars carried out by the Judicial Studies Board and a suggestion was made that judges exercised their discretion too inappropriately, the noble and learned Lord said that it was met with outrage and disbelief. I am prepared to accept that. The proposition that six men falsely accused of terrorist offences in Birmingham had been wrongly accused was met year upon year by the judiciary of this country with outrage and disbelief. Indeed, that was not the only occasion when our system determined that outrage and disbelief were necessarily the safest guides to the most just outcome.
These are exceptionally difficult matters. I take note of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley; namely, why specify 24 hours? I shall illustrate the reason for that by referring to some questions that were raised earlier. We are actually talking about sexual activity at or about the time of the alleged offence. I shall certainly consider whether or not we ought to have a better formulation. for example, something along the lines of, "at or about the same time". I shall say why we want a cut-off point which is not arbitrary and, in so doing, I take assistance from the

59
examples given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. If I recollect correctly, I believe that the noble and learned Lord referred to an allegation of rape on New Year's day and said that the claimant could be asked, "Did you have sexual intercourse on Boxing Day, December 29th?", and so on. He said that such questions would be relevant. However, would it equally be a relevant question to put to the complainant, "Did you have consensual sexual intercourse with a man 10 years ago?" Plainly the relevance would have diminished. It seems to me that it is perfectly sustainable to put "24 hours" or "at or about the time", even bearing in mind the arguments marshalled against us.
We have thought about this a good deal. I believe that there is a continuing mischief which needs remedying. We have looked at what was said in Speaking Up for Justice and in the responses that we received, and we believe that the law needs changing. We also believe that evidence or questioning about a complainant's sexual behaviour, whether with the accused or with anyone else, should only be admitted where it is truly relevant to an issue at trial. A refusal to admit or allow it might—and that is quite a low test—have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or the court on any such issue.
So far, we have travelled a path in agreement. However, we now part company essentially—or, very often, fundamentally—on the question of what issue is relevant at trial? It is worth remembering what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly told us on a number of occasions. Essentially, the issues are: did intercourse take place between the complainant and the accused on the occasion in question? Did the complainant consent? Did the accused believe that the complainant consented?
Let us consider: "Did the complainant consent?" This means, "Did the complainant consent to sexual intercourse with this defendant?"—and not, as the proprietor of her own body, thoughts, life and choices, did she consent to sexual intercourse with others. I do not want to put this unnecessarily harshly, but there is sometimes a danger of thinking that women are wholly different from men in their capacity for choice. Moreover, because we were all brought up that way—that is, in a significantly male-dominated society—there is a danger of assuming that if a woman freely wishes to have sexual intercourse with A, then inevitably she must succumb to the desires of B, C, D, and so on. Not only is that wrong; it is fundamentally and deeply insulting.
I certainly undertake to think most carefully about what Members of the Committee have said. I am not entirely persuaded by everything. I do not have the perfect response to the Capulet syndrome which my noble friend put to me, but I certainly undertake to think about it. It is possible in very rare circumstances that such a defence might be mounted. I am bound to say that I know the deficiencies of that approach, but, as all lawyers are entitled to say, in all my years at the Bar and on the Bench I have never heard of a defence of that sort. But, obviously, my practice was too limited. There is a serious point behind what my noble friend
60
would regard as perhaps an extreme example, although I put that in an amicable way. I shall certainly consider what she said with great care. I believe that my noble friend is really looking at striking similarity. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the Minister leaves that point, can he tell us, from all his years of practice, and so on, whether he knows or has heard of a case where the defence is, "I didn't believe she consented, but she did actually consent"? I cannot think of that situation ever conceivably arising. Unless it does arise, it seems to me that the provisions of subsection (3)(b) are otiose because a defendant can always say, "I reasonably believed that she consented". Therefore, under subsection (3)(a) he is entitled, if it is relevant and the judge gives leave, to go into the claimant's sexual history.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that subsection (3)(a) entitles an accused to go into the claimant's sexual history. If in fact his defence is, "I reasonably believed", then he has the protection which is given him, subject of course to the parliamentary structure—and I emphasise "subject to the parliamentary structure"—which is incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, we return to the point of principle of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, of whether it is to be left to a discretion which many believe has been inappropriately exercised—and I put that with due deference to the judiciary—or is it to be the subject of a parliamentary structure. That principle, as identified by the noble Lord, really puts most of the submissions and arguments that have been made, which I stress are all well-meaning and honestly held, into that context.
A particular question was raised as regards what the consequences of the legislation had been, subsequent to the report of Dame Rose Heilbron. A good deal of the evidence which the noble Lord identified—and I shall not weary Members of the Committee by repeating it—indicates that applications were made and granted beyond the scope of what Dame Heilbron anticipated. It is true that the Bar has rules, but they do not actually attend to this mischief. It is also true that the Court of Appeal may issue guidelines but, on the understanding that we have, they do not necessarily govern what judges actually do. We should bear in mind the fact that if the judge allows in material "wrongly and inappropriately" and there is an acquittal, there is no review in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division of what has happened; nor any prospect of challenging the judge's determination on admissibility.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu further questioned why things are different in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated, we considered carefully the legislation in Canada, New South Wales and Scotland. As I understand it, the wording of the Scottish legislation places little emphasis on relevance or probity value. The Scottish Office research in 1992 considered that the width of the interests of justice gateway meant that sexual behaviour evidence was admitted much more often than had been intended. Some practitioners who were questioned said that the inclusion of a gateway

61
made the legislation "a waste of time". On various occasions examples have been given about what might or might not be admissible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister leaves the subject of research and professional standards, is he aware of Professor Temkin's in-depth study involving interviews with a small sample of senior criminal practitioners at the Bar? Her interviews with experienced advocates who had appeared both for the defence and for the accused indicated that—the study comprised male and female barristers, including male banisters "of a certain age"
"The facts were regarded as of relatively minor significance, the main task being, as one barrister put it, 'to undermine the woman's personality'".
Professor Temkin states that,
"One eminent QC said he always applied to the judge to admit the woman's past sexy al history because 'if a woman could be depicted as a slut' juries were disinclined to convict".
Is the Minister aware of that in-depth study?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One knows of a number of mischiefs that follow from that. First of all, often material is not deployed to the issues which matter; namely, did intercourse occur, was there consent, was there a belief in consent? The material is really used—I think I detected an echo of this earlier this evening—to attack credibility. I submit that the true analysis of a woman who says, "I was raped" should not allow the fact that she has consented with her own body to sexual intercourse with another person on a different occasion. As regards credibility, I do not think it is legitimate to use that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, intervened when the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made a point about previous convictions. However, witnesses can be cross-examined about previous convictions if they affect credibility; in other words, if they are convictions of dishonesty. As far as I am aware, having voluntary sexual intercourse with someone on an earlier occasion does not necessarily involve any allegation of dishonesty, at least not on behalf of the consenting woman, although she may have been coaxed into it by something rather less than honest on the part of her then sexual partner.
These matters are extremely difficult. I do not think anyone who has been involved in a rape case as an advocate, a practitioner or a judge feels anything other than deep unease. That may be due to the nature of the charge and the nature of the evidence. However, we have come to the conclusion that we need to establish a parliamentary structure in this regard. I believe that we have it right. I do not dismiss any proposition put forward this evening. I give the undertaking that we shall consider the matter most carefully. However, I cannot give any guarantee that we shall reach a different conclusion.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that Amendment No. 125 is a modest amendment. I have previous convictions in this regard because when I was in
62
opposition every amendment I put forward was always described as extremely modest. However, I do not believe this measure is all that modest; in fact, it is extremely wide. Amendment No. 125 states,
"Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the court may … give leave for any evidence to be adduced or'"—
I add the word "any" at this point"—
"question to be asked if and to the extent that the court considers such evidence or question to be necessary in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial of the accused".
That is not modest a: all. It is an extremely wide discretion.
I understand that the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice may say that they intend the measure to provide a wide discretion. I revert to the point at which we began. A large number of complainants will either not complain or, having complained, will not go to court if they know—they have to be told about this by the police officer or the CPS if they ask this question—that they will be asked about the whole of their past sexual history. That is not relevant to any issue and will do nothing apart from demean someone not as a witness of truth and honesty but just because that person has exercised sexual choices in her own way. As 1 read the amendment, it is an extremely wide provision. I could, of course, be wrong in my construction of it.
I hope that I have dealt with the main themes here. I do not apologise for repeating the fact that I think the noble Lord, Lord Cope, identified the position correctly. Is this to be a matter for the courts' discretion or for parliamentary structure? We think that this is a matter for parliamentary structure on the face of the Bill. I recognise that other people may honourably disagree with that. I undertake yet again to think carefully about what has been proposed. However, I do not think that we shall deviate from: he principled approach that vie have adopted, even if the Committee thinks that that principle is ill-founded.
Lord Ackner: I shall be brief. The Minister has said that this is a difficult matter. It has also been said that the courts have not given the kind of guidance that would be helpful. In my respectful submission, they have. In the case of Viola in 1983 the Lord Chief Justice said,
"Inevitably in this situation, as in so many similar situations in the law, there is a grey area which exists between the two types of relevance, namely relevance to credit and relevance to an issue in the case. On one hand evidence of sexual promiscuity may be so strong or so closely contemporaneous in time to the event in issue as to come near to, or indeed to reach, the border between mere credit and an issue in the ease. Conversely, the relevance of the evidence to an issue in the case may be so slight as to lead the Judge to the conclusion that he is far from satisfied that the exclusion of the evidence or the question from the consideration of the jury would be unfair to the defendant".
The Court of Appeal in. the Brown case—the judgment being given by Lord Justice May—having cited what I have just read out, continued to put the matter as shortly as the following,
"The real inquiry is whether on the facts of the particular case the complainant's attitude to sexual relations could he material upon which in these days a jury could reasonably rely to conclude that the

63
complainant may indeed have consented to the sexual intercourse on the material occasion, despite her evidence to the contrary. It is in every case a question of degree".
I respectfully submit the matter could not have been put more succinctly and more clearly. To have instead of those words of wisdom this complex section seems to me to invite problems, not to solve them.
I respectfully submit that the Minister is not quite right when he says that if the judge gives too favourable an approach and it results in an acquittal, nothing can be done. I do not think the Home Secretary's reference procedure has been abolished. The Home Secretary could go to the Court of Appeal and invite a ruling as to whether in principle the approach by a learned judge was right or wrong.
Obviously I would not seek to put my amendment to the vote at this stage, but I—and others, no doubt—will be concerned about focusing on the right answer so that it can be dealt with on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 28, line 24, after ("(5)") insert ("or (5A)").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment and those grouped with it, we move from the great issues of principle, which have been of interest to the Committee over the past hour and a half, to matters of much smaller detail.
Amendment No. 114 and Amendment No. 122, grouped with it, are addressed to the defence that someone else committed the rape, attack or sexual offence in question rather than the defendant. We have not discussed this possible defence, but obviously it arises in some cases. The amendment is intended to preserve the admissibility of evidence which may be relevant to that defence.
The other three amendments—Amendments Nos. 119 to 121—seek to adjust the wording of the clause to deal with the situation where there is more than one defendant. This also is a practicality which arises in the courts. It did not seem to me or, to be more accurate, to my noble and learned friend whose name appears also on the amendments, that that had been adequately dealt with in the wording of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As to this group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 114 and 119 to 122—Clause 40(3) already allows the courts to give leave for sexual behaviour evidence to be introduced in relation to the issue of whether the offence was committed by the defendant or another person. At present, the court will have to consider several criteria before giving permission under subsection (3). It will have to consider whether the evidence or questions relate to a specific instance or instances of behaviour, whether their absence might lead to a conclusion on a relevant issue being unsafe, and whether the real reason for asking for the evidence or questions to be admitted is to impugn the complainant's credibility rather than any relevance
64
to an issue in the case. Amendments Nos. 114 and 122 would not require the court to consider those last two criteria. We think that it is important that it should.
The amendment suggests that one defendant could play off another in introducing evidence or questions about the complainant's previous sexual behaviour. We do not think that that is appropriate. The provision in subsection (5) is intended to allow a defendant to rebut evidence introduced by the prosecution against him. The prosecution's ability to put forward evidence about the sexual history of the complainant is unfettered; it is only fair to the defendant therefore to allow him to introduce evidence or questioning on the grounds of rebuttal, if the court so agrees. Any defendant wishing to introduce sexual behaviour evidence would have to apply to the court for leave. If the court gave leave to one defendant under subsection (3), it could theoretically give leave to another who wished to introduce evidence which suggested something different if it was relevant to his case. That is theoretically possible, but it is perhaps difficult to conceive in practice.
The defendant should be able, in the interests of justice, to rebut evidence that the prosecution has introduced with the aim of showing that he committed the crime; there is no need for him to be able to rebut his co-defendant's evidence. The defendant does not need to prove or disprove anything that his co-defendant has said.
An unintended effect of these amendments would be that, in giving leave under the suggested new subsection (5A), the courts would not have to consider whether the question or evidence was intended to impugn the complainant's credibility or whether, as I said earlier, it related to a specific instance or instances of behaviour. For the reasons I spelled out earlier today, that cannot be right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has set out in some detail his response to these amendments. I shall need to consider what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 123 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 29, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Where evidence or questioning is or has been allowed or admitted in terms of this section, the court may at any time limit as it thinks fit the extent of the evidence or the questioning.").
The noble Lord said: As I think is clear, Amendment No. 124 seeks to provide a power for the courts to limit the evidence or a line of questioning if it appears to have gone beyond that anticipated at the time an application to pursue that line of questioning was made. It may be that the amendment is unnecessary because of some other clause, but it certainly seems to me necessary to have some restriction of this kind. The amendment would ensure that where the evidence develops in a manner which cannot have been foreseen by the court—

65
and probably anyone else—at the time the original ruling was made, the court can restrict the impact of its ruling. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: I support the noble Lord on this amendment. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, if he were in his place, would say that the judges already have this right. The amendment would strengthen the Bill and the hope given to the general public by the rest of this part of it. I would like to see something along these lines incorporated into the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 42(2) requires the court to set out the extent to which it is giving leave for evidence to be adduced or questions asked in this relevant area—where it is decided, of course, that leave should be given at all. We expect those limits to be tightly defined. When evidence is being presented or adduced, the court can step in at any time to ensure that the limits are adhered to. Obviously, if the questioning becomes irrelevant, abusive or humiliating, the court already has common law powers which the judge is obliged to exercise in the control of the trial.
This amendment suggests that, during the trial, the court should not feel bound by the limits set in response to the application for the admission of the evidence or the questions. Except on the bases of irrelevance, abuse or humiliation, it would not be appropriate for the court to overturn its earlier decision and limit the evidence or questions further or not so far as had been originally decided. That is what this amendment would allow. I do not think that that would help. It would he confusing and unfair to the defence having been given leave to conduct the case in a particular way, and to the complainant. I believe that the common law powers are sufficient.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brentford for his support. However, in the light of what the Minister has said, which I shall consider carefully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [11Verpretation and application of section 401]:
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Restrictions on reporting alleged offences involving persons under 18]:
7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 30, line 28, at end insert ("in public by the police in the course of their duties").
The noble Lord said: We now move on to a completely different part of the Bill dealing with
66
reporting restrictions. I am sure it will be within your Lordships' knowledge that a great deal of concern has been expressed about these provisions by the newspapers, by the Guild of Editors and by others. The Government's idea, if I may summarise it. I hope not unfairly—is to extend the statutory prohibition on reporting alleged offences involving persons under 18 as witnesses or victims or, under Clause 44, if young people are involved as the accused.
The first difficulty about the clause to which attention has been drawn by editors and by the newspapers is the one to which Amendment No. 126A is addressed. It is that there is no definition of what constitutes an allegation for the purposes of this legislation. It seems to me that if anyone says, even in private, that an offence has been committed, that may be taken to be an allegation. It is indeed an allegation. But in some respects the restrictions, which are total, apply from that point on. There is no way in which editors or anyone else could know whether someone privately has made an allegation.
However, it is not as extreme as that in every case. It may be that some wild allegations have been made publicly—they may have been shouted out in the street or published in writing—which are totally unfounded and which no one would take seriously. That would still be a public allegation and would set in motion all the restrictions provided for by the clause. We need to know from the Minister what he thinks constitutes the making of an allegation. How are the media to know that an allegation has been made so that they can realise that the law should apply and that they are not allowed report the matter? It may be that a newspaper or an editor does not know of a specific allegation having been made but, nevertheless, might in those circumstances commit an offence by accident. Not knowing of the allegation, the newspaper or editor might publish some facts which go against what is permitted under Clause 43.
My amendment seeks to suggest one definition which might be appropriate as a trigger for the start of the restrictions on reporting. The amendment states that the allegation should be made,
"in public by the police in the course of their duties".
Once a police spokesman makes a public statement that an alleged offence has been committed—probably by persons unknown at that stage—the press would be placed officially on notice that this was an offence to which the clause should apply and not one which the press could report or report in any specific terms.
It may be that the Minister will not like the definition that I am suggesting in Amendment No. 126A. However, I do not think that no definition will do. If the Minister dislikes Amendment No. 126A I hope he wi11 suggest a better alternative. There must be some trigger so that all concerned, particularly the news media—television, radio and the newspapers—can know that allegations have been officially made and that the restrictions, which are intended, quite rightly-4 sympathise with them—to protect the identity of young

67
people, have begun to bite. They are very strong prohibitions, as I shall seek to show in later amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: Other than a brief mention at Second Reading by the Minister of State, there has been no discussion at all in the long hours we have spent in Committee on the Bill on the important matter of reporting restrictions. The intention of Clauses 43 and 44 is explained in the Explanatory Notes as being to clarify and extend the present statutory protection of certain witnesses and alleged child or juvenile offenders from being identified in the media. The present lacuna is addressed in Clause 43; that is, the time between the making of an allegation that an offence has been committed and the charging or the laying of the information before a magistrate. Clause 43 would eliminate that. It is highly desirable that the interests of potentially vulnerable children and young people are to be protected from potentially harmful media identification and the resulting publicity. So, in my opinion, this clause is welcome.
My noble friend Lord Cope has raised an important point. I suspect that, speaking as he has from the standpoint of newspaper editors, we shall end up on different sides of the argument on this matter. However, the question of what constitutes an allegation occurred to me as well. It is not clear at present, either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes, who makes the allegation. I have considerable doubts as to whether it should simply be the police. We must remember that some allegations made in the press, substantiated or otherwise, can be extremely damaging to young people who are accused of what may be a serious criminal offence, and to witnesses, because the Bill refers to, "those involved in criminal proceedings". It would therefore be helpful to hear from the Minister a definition as to what constitutes an allegation.
Viscount Brentford: I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. However, the problem that I have with the wording may be what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, hinted at; namely, that an allegation can often be made by the media long before the police have formulated it. I can imagine that the media will often be the first to report an offence being made. Therefore I wonder whether this amendment can work in practice. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. Surely it is important that this point is clarified. At present it is obscure to the media and to other people.
Lord Monson: When the Minister replies, will he explain why a witness or potential witness aged 17 years and 11 months is said to be in need of the protection of Clause 43, while a witness aged, let us say, 18 years and one month is said not to be in need of that protection?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is always a cut-off point, whether it is driving at 30 mph as opposed to 30.2 mph, and 18 is normally regarded as the occasion
68
of reaching adulthood in terms of ability to vote and similar activities. We think that is a sensible cut-off point. It is used in other legislation.
To summarise the position we have arrived at, the reason that "allegation" is included is that the provision follows the precedent of Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. There has been no difficulty in practice in using the word "allegation". I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that it should not be limited to the police and public. After all, there are many bodies which prosecute, or have charge of allegations, in the context of allegations against children—teachers and social workers, for instance; an allegation made to the press itself may also count.
On a small point, there is a defence for publishers, which includes the print media, in Clause 48(5). However, my fundamental response may be of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in deciding whether or not he wishes to press this matter at all. I am very conscious of the fact that we need a free press, which ought to be able to report matters of public interest unless there are convincing reasons for not doing so. We adopted that approach in relation to the Human Rights Bill and produced a satisfactory outcome, and similarly in relation to what was then Clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill, again with a satisfactory outcome.
Representatives of the press and the broadcast media visited officials in the Home Office last week. I have undertaken to see them again on Wednesday to talk through all the issues that concern them. Some concerns may be wrongly based; some may be perfectly legitimate. Therefore I assure the Committee that I am genuinely approaching those discussions with an open mind. In the past, my dealings with the broadcast and print media, not least the Guild of Editors, have been helpful and productive. They have always approached matters in an open-minded way.
Having dealt with the point on allegations and the defence in Clause 48(5), for the remainder I should prefer to have discussions with the media representatives on Wednesday to see whether we cannot safeguard their legitimate interests as well as the interests that all Members of the Committee feel need to be safeguarded in the context of children.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am glad to hear that the Minister is approaching his forthcoming meeting with editors with an open mind. We were told that he would approach the whole Bill with an open mind. With due respect to him, that has not been frightfully apparent thus far in relation to some of the earlier clauses. However, in view of the forthcoming meeting and his remarks about the provisions of Amendment No. 126A, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 126AA:
Page 31, line 18. leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126E and 126F. It is fortuitous that the Minister of State is shortly to meet representatives of the Guild cf Editors and the broadcasting organisations
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said I was meeting representatives of the media. I did not specifically include the Guild of Editors.
Lord Windlesham: The point that I was about to make regarding representatives of the media is unaltered. When the Minister meets those representatives, will he bear in mind that there is another, equally important public interest which must be balanced with the interests of a free press? It is to that that I wish to address my remarks.
Clauses 43 and 44, setting out the restrictions on reporting alleged offences and criminal proceedings involving persons tinder 18, give the court the discretion to allow publicity, or partial publicity, in relation to the identities and other details of defendants under 18 if they are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice—a phrase repeatedly used in the debates on previous amendments. These amendments seek to test that provision in the light of Britain's international obligations under the relevant conventions.
Leaving aside the European Convention on Human Rights—since the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has made a statement on the face of the Bill; or perhaps I should say on the cover to the Bill rather than in the contents—that in his view the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, that leaves us with three international conventions to which the Government of the United Kingdom is party.
The earliest is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. The covenant required that,
"any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires, or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children".
Next came the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. Article 40 required the privacy of children alleged as, or accused of, having infringed the penal law,
"to have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings".
More detailed were the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (known as the Beijing Rules) in 1985. Rule 8.1 states
"The juvenile's rights to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid ha-m being caused to her or him by undue publicity, or by the process of labelling".
Rule 8.2 states
"In principle, no in-ormation that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender shall be published".
In the official commentary to the rules it was made clear that,
70
"Young persons are particularly susceptible to stigmatisation. Criminological research into labelling processes has provided evidence of the detrimental effects (of different kinds) resulting from the permanent identification of young people as 'delinquent' or -criminal'".
Rule 8 stresses the importance of protecting the juvenile from the adverse effects that may result from the publication in the mass media of information about the case; for example, the names of young offenders alleged or convicted.
It is important to recall that the United Kingdom has accepted all those obligations. Her Majesty's Government were one of the first to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Chill Two more recent reports are also relevant. The report of the 10th session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 1995 said:
"The privacy of the child should be fully respected in all stages of proceedings, including in relation to criminal records and possible reporting by the media".
The report of the 11th session in 1996 states
"It is important that the media themselves do not abuse children. The integrity of the child should be protected in reporting about, for instance, involvement in criminal activities".
We should never underestimate the intensity of media pressure on the courts to lift reporting restrictions. There have been recent examples of high profile cases involving young people charged with offences. But none has been as vivid and poignant as the trial of the two boys, aged 10 at the time, for the murder of a much younger child, the victim being James Bulger. In situations of that kind, the interests of justice, to which we have so often referred in these debates, and the right to know, about which the noble Lord will hear much in his forthcoming meeting, pull in different directions.
So it is for that reason, which I have developed in the past few minutes, that I submit that additional protection for children and young persons, as contained in this part of the Bill, is welcome; it is needed and it should be drawn as tightly as possible. There should be no more than minimal exceptions to the doctrine of no publicity. If that is so, there will be a chance that the extreme pressures the other way may be resisted. I beg to move.
Lord Patten: My noble friend Lord Windlesham and I have known each other for too many years for him to take offence when I tell him that I dissent a little from the line he has taken on subsection (6). In all the years that I had the pleasure of representing him in another place, never a cross word passed between us when he was my constituent. I hope that no cross word will pass between us after this evening's debate.
It is critically important that in cases dealing with juveniles, where the public interest is clear, judges should have the opportunity to waive the total ban on publicity. Why do I say that? I say it because young people mature at a different rate. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at the end of the last group of amendments, referred to children as being those under the age of 18. I believe that many 16 and 17 year-olds would take the attribution of being a child as an insult if they were called it at any stage.

71
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made an important point from the Cross Benches a few moments ago. He asked why we have a cut off at 18. What is the difference between someone aged 17 and 11 months and someone aged 18 and one month? The noble Lord put his finger on it; it is extremely difficult. If we are to stick with the age of 18—and I am in favour of 16 years of age, but I know there is no chance of that provision being introduced into the legislation—then when the public interest demands it the learned judge should have the opportunity to waive reporting restrictions. Then when someone of 16 or 17 is judged to be mature, and is not a child but has done something dreadful, it would be made public. It is often said at the moment that we cannot trust the judges. I believe that we can very much trust them when they have seen someone in the dock for a period. We can trust them to make up their own minds as to whether the boy or girl under 18 is nevertheless of such mature years and what they have done is so dreadful that it should be reported. That would demonstrate to the outside world the abhorrence of the judicial system.
Thus, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Windlesham. It is the first time that I have ever dissented from him in public and I hope it is the last. Nor do I wish to cause the Minister any disquiet by telling him that he has my wholehearted support. If necessary, I shall even go through the Lobbies with him.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I also hesitate to go against my noble friend Lord Windlesham. However, it seems to me to be right that Clause 43(6), which is referred to in the first of the amendments, should remain in the Bill. In this case, it is not dealing with a defendant, an alleged offender, it is dealing with a victim or witness, someone else involved in an offence. The offender may be of quite a different age. The provision is intended to protect people involved who are under 18.
Subsection (6) does not widen the provision a great deal, it only mentions "the interests of justice". That is the only criterion which the criminal court has to apply in deciding whether to dispense with the restrictions. It seems to me that the override should apply here.
The case for the later amendments dealing with offenders is slightly greater, but nevertheless I support the other two subsections remaining in the legislation.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I must caution the noble Lord, Lord Patten. His remarks were backward-looking, dealing with what someone had done. It would in no way help the rehabilitation and resettlement of the young person if he had had his or her name emblazoned across the newspapers. It would not be helpful for the future.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may throw more light on the matter. I am puzzled by the effect of subsection (2) to which subsection (6) refers. My noble friend Lord Cope mentioned the result of the words "involved in the offence". Obviously it does not mean having committed or been alleged to have committed the offence, it refers to the victim or a witness. If it is any of the people,
72
whether a person who has been acquitted, who has been a victim or who has been a witness, if it is right that they should be protected from publicity under the age of 18, why should it then be perfectly all right for the whole matter to be disclosed after they have reached the age of 18? That is what I find so puzzling about subsection (2). If it is puzzling in relation to subsection (2) it has a bearing upon the question whether or not subsection (6) should stand part of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I deal first with Clause 44. This is in effect a continuation of Section 39(5)of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. By virtue of the 1933 provisions restrictions on reporting that are imposed automatically in youth court proceedings can be removed if the court is satisfied that it should be done in the interests of justice. That is an important safeguard. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that the safeguard must be there for the court to exercise the power. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, Clause 43 is an extension back to the point of allegation and is therefore capable of being, and in the generality is intended to be, a further protection for those who need it on the basis that he outlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to point out that the phrase is "involved in". It may well be appropriate for the police and media representatives to apply to the court for an order for restrictions to be lifted. I give an important example that is very much to the point these days. It would be very important in a case of alleged child abduction for the identity of the child involved to be made public. I do not want to trespass into particular cases that are before the courts at the moment. It is, however, generally recognised that there are cases in which publication is of enormous assistance to the child in question. To take just one example, it is very important that the media should have power to carry the details of a missing child if the court makes that order.
Obviously, one wants to bear in mind—Clause 43 makes this plain—the interests of the young, but it should not be an absolute prohibition. In some circumstances it is right that the public should know not simply about a defendant but about those who may have been victims. As an example one has in mind Dunblane. There may well be a genuine and proper public interest in the public knowing the details. I sympathise with the theme expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but I believe that this discretion should be retained in Clauses 43 and 44.
Lord Windlesham: This debate has been a healthy one. It has shown the independence that this Chamber can bring to bear in the scrutiny of legislation. Conservative Peers have shown that they can dissent just as vigorously as others, as demonstrated in such a spectacular way by the noble Lords, Thomas of Gresford and Lord Lester on the Liberal Democrat Benches and others who spoke on one side or other of the divide in relation to the previous amendments. Likewise, on the Government side the noble Baroness,

73
Lady Mallalieu, did not by any means agree with the Minister's view. She argued her case very persuasively and forcefully.
There is no more to be said at this stage. I see the Government Chief Whip sitting in his place, no doubt attempting to conceal his glances at the clock. This issue has been thoroughly discussed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will take to heart the point I made earlier that if he meets media representatives, which is an entirely proper and appropriate thing to do, he will recall that the United Kingdom has treaty obligations. It is very easy for those who negotiate on behalf of the Government to agree to treaty obligations. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have copies of them on their shelves. But I Jo not believe that treaty obligations are frequently at the, forefront of Ministers' minds when they receive delegations from special interests. But we have great confidence in the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by: leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 126B
Page 31, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall impose any restriction on the police from publishing any information in the course of their duties, nor on the reporting of any such publication by the police.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 126B. The Minister has just referred to the way in which the police sometimes seek the assistance of the media in cases involving missing children and all kinds of other cases. He gave the impression that such matters could be readily reported. That is not the impression I gain from reading the Bill or studying what people have said about it. The noble Lord made particular reference to the Dunblane massacre. No doubt he was prompted to do so by the leader in today's Sun. Obviously the Minister does not read the Sun because he shakes his head. Nevertheless that matter was referred to in the leader this morning It was stated that restrictions would have made the reporting of the Dunblane massacre much more difficult.
This Bill is not intended to apply to Scotland but only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and therefore the precise case is not as good as it may appear to be. It is, however, a very good example of what can happen.
If the Bill's provisions had been followed in their entirety the newspapers would not have been able to say anything about which school had been involved in the massacre. They could not have named the dead teachers because, at least locally, that would have given away the identity of the school. It would have introduced almost wartime restrictions. Can the Committee imagine the anguish that would have been caused if radio and television in that case had had to say in effect that a gunman had murdered children and teachers in a school somewhere in Scotland without being any more specific? The telephone lines would have melted all over Scotland and else where in attempts to identify the school. In that case the gunman killed himself at the same time and so the case never came to court. I do not see how restrictions on the reporting of the name "Dunblane" and a number of other matters connected with the case would ever have been lifted.
I am quite sure that there must be a way round the problem, but no British newspaper, television channel or radio station could have given any indication as to where the school was. We would soon have got to know about it because the foreign media would have reported it very promptly. With the Internet and all the rest of it the details would have been available in Britain extremely quickly, although they would have been provided under the counter and from overseas. A court might have been specially convened to permit publicity to be given to it, but it would have been no good the court saying that it was in the interests of justice that restrictions should be lifted, which is the test provided in the Bill, because no one was being tried. The man was already dead and everybody knew it. Therefore, justice would not be served by publishing the name of the school and the other particulars, and the situation would have been extremely difficult. There are other examples, at which the Minister hinted. I refer to the disappearance of children. In such a case no court is involved in the early stages. It is the police who are involved in organising the hunt for the missing child, and often the public are called upon to he 1p and look out for certain things. I became involved in a case of that kind in my constituency about two years ago.
I give another theoretical example. Let us suppose that one has a hit and run driver who injures a child outside a school. The police would be unable to reveal the child's name or the name of the school. No particulars could be given, not even those which might enable the offender to be caught. One might say that one could go to the court and argue that it was in be interests of justice to release particulars of what had happened. But to do so would involve considerable delay for the police and, if the offender were not identified and brought to court, the ban would last indefinitely.
Therefore the amendment seeks to permit the police in the course of their formal duties to make announcements which could be reported. I realise that the police rather than the courts would decide whether it is right that further details should be reported. However, I believe that they are the right people at the time of the allegations to do exactly that. The courts do not become involved until later when a charge is preferred against someone and the matter moves into a different gear and a slower gear in the interests of justice. However the police have sometimes to act quickly in the interests of identifying the offender.
I sympathise with the general aim underlying the clauses, but, as drafted, they involve a considerable amount of overkill. They need careful consideration. I am sure that the representatives of the media whom the noble Lord will meet later in the week will add further examples. However, those that I have given indicate some of the disadvantages of the wide drawing of the restrictions at present.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to the fact that Chapter IV—Clauses 43 to 49—applies to Scotland. The clauses prevent Scottish newspapers from

75
publishing such stories from England and Wales. That will be a new law. Previously the Scottish press were free to report on such matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. While it applies to the newspapers in Scotland, an incident in Scotland such as Dunblane would not be covered by the restrictions.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The media have had concerns, some of which have been articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I believe that some of their fears may be based on a misunderstanding of what is intended. That is the reason that I wish to meet them, to see whether or not we can find common ground. I think that we should be able to do so.
I need say no more at present except that the amendments are defective. They assume that the only prosecuting authority is the police. Of course that is not so. Customs and Excise or the DSS come to mind immediately. It would give far too much discretion to the police. There is no difficulty in terms of speed because in Clause 43(8) we specifically cater for application to a single justice alone. That can be done very quickly.
Some of the questions have been based, I believe, on misapprehensions. The restrictions apply to juveniles involved in the offence; so one can name schools and headmasters but not the juveniles concerned. However, I believe that the press has a proper part to play. Its concerns should be carefully attended to. Equally, in answer to an earlier observation by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if any pressure group or group with interests involving the child wishes to correspond or to meet with me, I have said constantly that the door is always open to anyone who has a point of view to express.
I repeat: I think that the press has fears that may be put to rest by explanation. I am more than happy to listen to them. First, the amendments are too narrowly drawn. Secondly, I hope to give some sensible indication to noble Lords at Report stage as to whether or not I have been able to come to agreement, and in what terms.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We shall have the opportunity to return to these matters at a later stage. I accept that the intention underlying the clauses is good. My concern is with the details of the way in which it is applied, as I sought to make clear.
I realise that the amendment does not include all the prosecuting authorities. My recollection is that Customs and Excise does not have occasion frequently to deal with crimes dealing with juveniles, although it does sometimes. I had some responsibility for that body for a couple of years although not as regards prosecution.
It seemed to me that identifying a school was prohibited by Clause 43(5)(c). However, perhaps I misunderstood what the Minister said. I shall read carefully in the written record what he had to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 126C:
Page 31, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall impose any restriction on the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: When a particularly hideous crime is committed, a Statement is sometimes made in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Bill does not prevent the reporting of such parliamentary proceedings or, for that matter, lesser proceedings of that kind. I seek reassurance from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I believe that that assurance will be given easily to my noble friend. Indeed, having been in Parliament since 1945, first in one House and then the other, I have never heard of any restriction upon parliamentary proceedings—although during the war if Parliament so resolved there were such restrictions. I hope that I do not disagree with my noble friend but, if I do, I seek assurance from the earlier remark of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. He rightly referred to noble Lords' independence of opinion. That is very important. We put individual intellectual ability above party commitment. I hope that we always shall.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is whether the publication of the Official Report would be affected by Clause 43. That is governed by privilege and precedent. Words spoken by Members of both Houses have absolute privilege by virtue of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The verbatim report of those words published in the Official Report attracts absolute privilege by virtue of Section 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Television and radio excerpts from Parliament have qualified privilege from prosecution by virtue of Section 3 of the Act; that is, if they can show that they have acted in good faith. So if there is an accurate, verbatim record of what was said in the course of parliamentary proceedings, and it is broadcast in good faith, the broadcaster enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. We have no intention of altering the way in which proceedings of Parliament are reported. Restrictions on reporting which apply to other statutes do not have the protective caveats such as the one suggested by the noble Lord. I quite understand. He wished, I think, for the answer I have given.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126D:
Page 32, line 7, leave out from ("1933") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: In this otherwise perfect Bill, a gap has been found. We need to fill it in order to deal with Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have tabled

77
technical amendments to extend Section 49 of the Children and You in Persons Act directly to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not resist the amendments, but I am puzzled about one issue. The new proposed subsection (13) provides that for the reference to the age of 18 there is to be a reference to the age of 17. Does that mean that people in Northern Ireland mature a year sooner than others? The new proposed subsection (14) refers to a young person who has attained the age of 14 but is under the age of 17. That needs a little explanation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that with the noble Lord in the Chamber I should not have spoken so quickly. I will write to him giving those technical details. The answer has arrived in front of me, but it will not be sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes. It states that the new subsection is consistent with Northern Ireland legislation. I believe that the noble Lord is entitled to a better explanation. He shall have it by writing and I shall place a copy in the Library.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 126E:
Page 32. line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My amendment has already been spoken to. Provided that there is no resiling from the additional protection which this part of the Bill affords to children and young people, witnesses, victims and defendants, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 126E not moved.]
[Amendment No. 126F not moved.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 47 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Reporting restrictions: miscellaneous amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126G:
Page 50. line 39, leave out ("or Northern Ireland") and insert—
("(13) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section has effect as if—

(a) in subsection (1) for the reference to the age of 18 there were substituted a reference to the age of 17;

(b)subsection (2)(c) and (d) were omitted;

(c)in subsection (4A)—

(i)in paragraph (d) for the reference to section 16(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 there were substituted a reference to Article 50(3) of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998; and

(ii)in paragraph (e) for the references to a detention and training order and to section 76(6)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there were substituted references to a juvenile justice centre order and to Article 40(2) of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998;

78

(d) in subsection (5) for references to a court (other than the reference in paragraph (b)) there were substituted references to a court or the Secretary of State;

(e) in subsection (7)—

(i)for the references to the Director of Public Prosecutions there were substituted references to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; and

(ii)in paragraph (b) for the reference to any legal representative of the child or young person there were substituted a reference to any barrister or solicitor acting for the child or young person;

(f) subsections (8) and (10) were omitted; and

(g) in subsection (11)—

(i)the definition of "legal representative" were omitted; and

(ii)for the references to section 31(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there were substituted references to Article 2(2) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

(14) References in this section to a young person concerned in proceedings are, where the proceedings are in a court in Northern Ireland, to a person who has attained the age of 14 but is under the age of 17."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Determining competence of witnesses]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 37, line 23, leave out ("calling") and insert ("opposing the competence of').
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 to 130. I apologise for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose name heads the list of those proposing the amendment. Unfortunately, he has 'peen called away. A3 drafted, this clause places a burden of proof upon the witnesses to prove their competence, which runs counter to the putative assumption of competence found in the previous clause. As a matter of principle, I believe that competence should be assumed unless there is good evidence to dispute that assumption, and to this end it should be for the party opposing the competence of the witness to satisfy the court that that is so. This, I am told, works perfectly well in the Canadian Evidence Act 1998, so Ministers may wish to consult it for guidance.
There are further issues regarding the practical implications of placing the burden of proof in the hands of the opposing party. Clearly, one would not wish disputes of competence to become a strategic tool, exploited by the party opposing the use of the vulnerable witness to the detriment of that witness. Notwithstanding these concerns, I would welcome clarification of the Home Office's position. Amendment No. 128 is consequential for grammatical reasons on Amendment No. 127.
Amendment No. 129 reiterates the point I made earlier in connection with Clause 51. An example has been drawn to my attention which highlights my concern over the way in which assumptions of competence to give sworn evidence are contested. A

79
young man with learning disabilities was a prosecution witness in an assault case. As a test of competence, he was asked whether he ever told lies. He reflected for a moment and said, "Yes, sometimes." This was capitalised on by the defence, who argued that he was, by his own admission, an unreliable witness. Asked afterwards what he meant, he said that he sometimes told lies when he was asked whether he liked a dress, or a speech, or somebody's friends. He said that he would always tell the truth about real things and he was regarded as extremely honest in his sheltered employment and his family life. He was, in effect, honest and able to communicate, yet his credibility as a reliable witness was challenged and upheld on the basis of inappropriate questioning.
I believe that two things are vital: first, that this clause is amended so that competence is assumed from the outset; and, secondly, that the rules of court are developed regarding the type of questions permitted to determine capacity to give evidence under oath. Amendment No. 130 is a consequential grammatical correction. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a very important chapter in the Bill. Clause 50(1) states plainly
"At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence".
That is extremely important. We do not want competence and the ability to appreciate the significance of the oath investigated unnecessarily. Therefore, the issue will arise only if the court or a party to the proceedings has real doubts about the witness's abilities. After all, one of the purposes of the Bill is to enable witnesses to give evidence in court whose competence or ability to give sworn evidence might be in doubt under current arrangements, which have been seriously criticised.
In every case, the question of competence will arise only if the court or a party to the proceedings questions it. In every case, the decision is on the balance of probabilities. Only the court will be able to question the witness. That is because witnesses for whom the question arises are likely to be vulnerable and because competency and taking the oath are serious issues.
We believe that once a challenge is made it is only right that the party calling the witness should be the one to show the court why the witness should give evidence to the court or why that evidence should not be given unsworn. The court has to come to a conclusion on the balance that I indicated. The court needs to be satisfied about the competence of the witness. In order to do that, the court needs the assistance of the party calling the witness. That party, after all, is likely to know the witness best.
The determination about competence and therefore admissibility may well be made at the same time as the consideration of an application for a special measures direction since those special measures may be critical to the test of whether or not a witness understands questions and can give understandable answers.
We have thought about this matter quite carefully. I believe that the way we have drafted matters is correct
8 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I listened to what the Minister said. I should like to read it and discuss it with my noble friend Lord Rix before the next stage of the Bill. I still have a feeling that we are on opposite sides of the fence on this matter and I wish to reserve my right to return to it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If at any stage either my officials or I can be of assistance, then we are only too willing to meet the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, at a time convenient for them. The noble Lord is right. We are probably opposed. However, I am more than happy to make that invitation.
Lord Swinfen: Invitations from the Minister are always very welcome. I shall convey the invitation to my noble friend Lord Rix and it may well be that it will be taken up. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Determining whether witness to be sworn]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Inferences from silence not permissible where no prior access to legal advice]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 39, line 15, after second ("to") insert (", and during, ").
The noble Lord said: I understand that Chapter VI arises out of the judgment of the European Court. This is a probing amendment. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate that the opportunity to consult a solicitor should continue during the period of questioning, charging or being informed and so on. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that this amendment would add anything of substance to the current safeguards contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act together with the existing codes of practice. Clause 55 provides that inferences from silence are not permissible where the accused has not been allowed an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to interview at the police station.
The noble Lord may be concerned that a suspect, having been given the opportunity to consult a solicitor, may be denied further access to legal advice during interview at the police station.
Section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 makes it clear that, where a person has been arrested and held in custody and has been given the opportunity to obtain legal advice, he is entitled to contact a solicitor privately or at any time if he requests to do so.

81
PACE Code C dealing with the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers states that when a person has been permitted to consult a solicitor he must be allowed to be present while the suspect is interviewed. Once the interview has begun, the solicitor may be required to leave only if his conduct is so unprofessional that the interview cannot be conducted because of that behaviour. In those circumstances, the code provides also that the suspect should be allowed to consult another solicitor before the interview continues and that solicitor will be given the opportunity to be present at the interview. Therefore, I believe that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the assurance he seeks.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [General supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 60, line 47, column 3, leave out from ("Article") to end of line 50 and insert ("22'').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 42, line 38, after ("provisions;") insert—
("( ) the provisions of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 and paragraph 1 of that Schedule so far as having effect for the purposes of those provisions;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) Order 1999
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the d7aft order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
82
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) Order 1999
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on I 1 th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Diplomatic Privileges (British Nationals) Order 1999
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move., That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on taking up the Northern Ireland portfolio on the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to co-operation with him in the usual way.
The draft Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 before the House today seeks to consolidate with amendment the law dealing with the administration of public services in Northern Ireland by government. departments.
It is the first in a series of pieces of legislation paving the way for the transfer of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly, following the Good Friday agreement, the referendum and the elections to the new Assembly last year. In that context, I fully understand the concerns surrounding the issue of decommissioning, an issue which we shall have ample opportunity to discuss on Wednesday, 16th February in this House.
One of the issues which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to the Assembly for consideration in July 1998 was agreement on the number of ministerial posts and the distribution of executive responsibilities between those posts.
The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) issued a statement on 18th December 1998 setting out their proposals for the structures of Northern Ireland departments and north-south implementation bodies and areas of co-operation. This order deals with that part of the statement which concerns departmental structures. As a result of the order there will be 10 departments plus the department of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In accordance with that statement concerning departmental structures, the order provides for the establishment of five new Northern Ireland departments and renames three existing departments. The titles of the three other Northern Ireland departments remain unchanged.
I should perhaps clarify that the changes are to the Northern Ireland departments, not to the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Office will remain under the direction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whose responsibilities in relation to Northern Ireland will be greater post-devolution than those of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales after devolution.
The order does not deal with the functions of the Northern Ireland departments. The redistribution of statutory functions across the new departmental structure will be effected by subordinate legislation through a transfer of functions order, the details of which are currently being settled. Although the transfer of functions order will not be considered in this House, there are a number of other pieces of legislation related to devolution for Northern Ireland which will be brought forward in coming weeks. These include an order to make consequential modifications of enactments, orders to commence various provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and an order setting the date on which power will be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This order is therefore a further step along the road to a devolved administration for Northern Ireland. It frames in law the proposals on departmental structures set out in the statement made by the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) on 18th December last year. The proposals were contained in an interim report by the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) which was discussed and approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 18th January 1998. I believe that should be 18th December 1998. A final report will be brought to the Assembly on 15th February with a determination by the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) on ministerial offices.
Most of the provisions of the order are not new. The order is largely a consolidation of existing law. Unlike the situation in Scotland and Wales, there is already in Northern Ireland a constitutional framework for devolution. There thus exists a body of law dealing with the administration of public services by government departments spread over many years with numerous amendments. This order has provided the opportunity to consolidate and update the language of that body of law into one enactment. There are two elements which are not a consolidation—the provisions for the new
84
departmental structures and an enabling provision dealing with junior Ministers. I should now like to summarise the main provisions of the order.
Articles 1 and 2 deal with the title, commencement and interpretation of the order. Commencement will be by an appointed day order. It is proposed that that will take effect from a date prior to the introduction of devolution to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Article 2 also deals with the exercise of departmental functions by junior Ministers. It enables junior Ministers to exercise functions under the order to the extent authorised by determination of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister under Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is thus an enabling provision only.
Article 3 introduces the main changes to the existing law and provides for the new departmental structures. It provides for the new structures to comprise three existing departments: the Department of Education, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel. It provides for the renaming of three departments: the Department of Agriculture would become the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; the Department of Health and Social Services would become the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and the Department of Economic Development would become the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
The order also provides for the creation of five new departments. These would be the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure; the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment; the Department for Regional Development; the Department for Social Development; and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I stated earlier, the functions of departments will be addressed separately in a transfer of functions order which is currently being prepared.
Article 4 re-enacts existing provisions and in doing so enables the departmental Minister to distribute the functions of his or her department among its officers and provides for departmental functions to be exercised subject to the direction and control of its Minister.
Articles 5 to 7 also re-enact existing provisions. They give departments the status of corporate bodies, make provision for the use of official seals by departments and for documents issued by them and their Minister to be received in evidence as official documents. Article 8 transfers the existing powers of the Secretary of State to assign functions to or to transfer functions between Northern Ireland departments to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.
Normally an Order in Council is published for public consultation. This order has not been published. However, the changes it will introduce comply with those set out in the agreed statement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of 18th December 1998. Also, the order has been circulated to and considered by the First Minister (Designate), the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and the Northern Ireland Assembly party leaders.
The order forms part of the legislation to be put in place for devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is the basis on which the 10 Northern

85
Ireland departmental Ministers will be appointed in accordance with agreements reached in Belfast on the night of 17th December 1998 and the number of departments proposed comes within the limits set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Blease: My Lords. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the detailed and informed way in which he introduced this important Northern Ireland order. Like many others in this House, over many years I have sought to apply my practical experience and reasoned opinion to Northern Ireland legislative measures. I consider this order to he most crucial and challenging, especially concerning the future for parliamentary democracy, community well-being and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
Some of the changes in the departments mentioned by my noble friend are extremely challenging and worth noting. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could not be better in my view. It is an important aspect of the Northern Ireland scene. Questions also arise from the range of functions under the Department of Environment and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. They are challenging changes and very relevant to present needs.
The Departments (Northern Ireland) Order is firmly based in the Belfast agreement. In today's issue of the Irish News, it is stated
"Speaking last night, Mr. Trimble rejected claims that his party wanted to 'park' the Good Friday agreement. 'I don't believe the process is deadlocked at all, ' he said. 'Seamus and I are working very hard to implement the agreement and our objective is to see that the agreement is implemented in full. We will, I am sure, achieve a position by early to mid-March of having everything ready for devolution to occur"
On the same page, the newspaper states
"Speaking from Brussels Deputy First Minister Seamus Mallon, who is on a mission with Mr. Trimble to secure European money for Northern Ireland, said: 'Let's see what happens. We have got the agreement in place. we have got, within the next week, the proposals for all of the institutions, then we move into the period of devolution. I am fairly confident that by the time that period comes we will be moving into a position where those in the European Commission and the Council of Ministers will be able to see that this is working'.
Even a brief perusal of the order indicates that it is a product of many hours of acute study and the application of practical experience and knowledge of many listed Acts of Parliament going back to 1921. These are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the order. It requires a tremendous historical span to cover the application of the practical changes which are necessary. We warmly acknowledge the careful and experienced application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Ministers, the advising staff, the Civil Service officials, and the parliamentary draftsmen who produced that challenging and important document.
I understand that arrangements have been made for a series of explanatory and consultative conferences dealing with the practical aspects of procedures and
86
methods. I understand that those were made available to the elected Members of the Assembly and their assistants. It is important that they should have an opportunity to examine the devolved system, such as the proposed Assembly.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether such arrangements were made and, if so, how many training, advisory, information and other seminars or events for Assembly Members have been organised or planned by the Northern Ireland Office. How many of the 108 Assembly Members indicated their intention to attend each scheduled event and how many stayed for the full duration of each named event? Were senior Civil Service officials, having direct experience of the Assembly's legislative processes and of drafting arid implementing Assembly business, included, to assist at and participate in such events?
It is important to ask that series of questions because there is quite a lot of talk about people not being involved in the arrangements. However, every effort has been made, and many hours have been spent, in trying to explain the new, devolved methods.
Perhaps I may refer to last Friday's published statement by the president of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce. He told an audience, which included the First Minister designate, that the Northern Ireland Assembly will inherit an economy which i; at its lowest point in the economic cycle for a decade. He warned that some 40 per cent. of Northern Ireland's GDP, representing 45, 000 jobs, depended on the beleaguered textile and agri-business sectors and that there was every reason to fear for the short-term future of the economy.
He added that it is vital, therefore, that the Assembly Members and civil servants are able to take up the reins of government immediately and make a meaningful contribution to the future economic, educational and social well-being of Northern Ireland. It is important at this stage that those who are thinking of the well-being of their children, the aged, the sick and of all their neighbours in Northern Ireland should gel: down to the business of setting up the Assembly as quickly as possible.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, when the Northern Ireland Bill left this House a few months ago, I think that it legislated for six departments, although it may have been six plus one. We now have 10 plus one. I simply do not believe that the most efficient way of running and governing 1.3 million people in six counties is by having 10 Ministers and all that follows in the form of bureaucracy and civil servants, however competent and willing. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, pointed out that the economy is not in a strong stag. I was sorry to see last night that it looks as though Mackies is finally going.
The Government started on a high-risk strategy, culminating in great success with the Good Friday agreement, and they deserve great credit for it. However, good strategists know that frequently the time comes for a change of direction. We have 10 departments plus one rather than six because Sinn

87
Fein had to have two places in the government. That is an example of the Government once again rolling over. I do not accept that that policy should continue. I am not saying that it was wrong at that time, but that is the way that it appears to the people, certainly in County Antrim.
We are on the brink. If by Good Friday 1999 we are not to lose all that was gained on Good Friday 1998, we need a change of direction and a serious hardening of the stance with regard not only to the republican movement as a whole, but to all terrorists. We are rapidly moving from a position where Northern Ireland was one of the safest parts of the United Kingdom in which to walk about, day or night, to the position where it will be among the most dangerous. I refer to the decrease in community policing and control of large areas of our cities. Now, that is permeating into the country and the villages. They are becoming unpoliced. We have drugs, intimidation and gang warfare. We have all the "nasties", well led and well controlled by those who know how to do it best.
Unless the Government change their view and policy and take a tougher line, by Easter 1999—I hope that it does not happen but I have always been cautious about the agreement—dear old Northern Ireland will have exchanged open terrorism, albeit tightly controlled by security forces, with the security forces well on top of the terrorists, for widespread crime. The Government will wish that they had brought a very good agreement to the table and signed it. They may lose the opportunity by releasing too much control. Policemen are no longer supported by soldiers in West Belfast. Indeed, some of the strongholds of the police force are being pulled down. I refer to some of the watch towers and observation towers. Those bad boys—I shall not call them "terrorists"; they are criminals—are starting to build and to move freely. I assure your Lordships that that is very dangerous. I hope that the Government will heed that. If not, they will not deliver what we all hope for, which is a well policed, well managed country as a result of the achievements on Good Friday 1998.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am delighted to have the privilege of following my noble friend Lord Glentoran. His remarks did not come as any surprise to me. He succeeded a father who played a very large role in stabilising Northern Ireland and establishing fair and equal government. The family, as a whole, have continued to play an indispensable part in guiding and advising those who do not always listen to common sense.
I suppose that the order may be regarded as a kind of enabling measure. Like my noble friend Lord Glentoran, I understand that six departments were regarded as reasonable, but the figure has now been upped to 10 plus one in an effort to provide jobs for the boys. It is good to see the Treasury, for a change, being so benevolent, provided that it is happy to finance that, and is equally happy to do so for that which is yet to come with regard to Scotland, Wales and eventually London, when it has "home rule". They too will add to the bargain.
88
I used the word "enabling" earlier because this order will come into force and the structures operational only when much more fundamental developments are firmly in place. I notice that the Secretary of State and others have been expressing the hope over the weekend—and I hope that I do not misquote them—that the "two sides will compromise". Who precisely is expected to compromise? A year ago it might have been reasonable to suggest that unionists and republicans might compromise. I think that it can be taken from all that has already been said and from the knowledge that noble Lords have acquired that the unionists have compromised in the sense that the Government have made a long list of concessions at the expense of the majority population. But the Government have extracted no significant concessions whatsoever in return. There has been absolutely no balancing factor.
Decommissioning remains a crucial issue. The wise words of Mr. John Hume become more and more relevant by the day. He said some years ago on this topic,
"Political parties cannot be expected to sit down in government with men who have guns on the table; guns under the table; or guns outside the door".
The supreme importance of the issue is illustrated in a poll published in this evening's Belfast Telegraph which is generally recognised as Northern Ireland's number one newspaper. That poll shows that 84 per cent. of respondents to the poll want the IRA, UDA and UVF to decommission now. A surprising aspect of the poll is that of that 84 per cent., 80 per cent. were "yes" voters in the referendum.
Considering that we are often told by the Government that the "yes" voters provided supreme authority for the Good Friday agreement, the amnesty for murderers and every other dubious adventure, surely in the face of that expression of public opinion by a reputable body, the Government will not ignore this latest verdict of those "yes" voters who have sustained the Government's case for the past 10 months. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, those voters are now beginning to have second, third and fourth thoughts.
But decommissioning will be much more difficult for the reasons which I provided to your Lordships on the 3rd September 1998 when we returned to the House for a one-day sitting. I said on that occasion,
"With regard to the proscribed list, the membership consists of terrorist groups who have identified themselves by claiming what they regard as achievements; namely, a murderous campaign".
They boasted about that. I went on to say,
"That is indiscriminate slaughter which puts the public in fear"
I come back to that phrase on this occasion. I continued:
"I mention fear. I am in fear because I am concerned by the existence of an unknown body to which almost 70 per cent. of the Provisional IRA's mechanisms and munitions have been quietly transferred since 24th July of this year. Those transfers"
as I said on that occasion on 3rd September
"continue as we deliberate here today".
The worrying thing is that,
"Despite all the efforts of the intelligence services throughout the entire British Isles, the structure of the new body has not been penetrated or identified, nor has the identity of its members or approximate locations, It does not appear to be its intention to

89
become involved and active until the early part of next year, by which time its striking. power may surpass anything that has gone before".-— I Official Report, 3/9/98; cols. 26 and 27.]
That was a reference to my contribution in your Lordships' House on 3rd September. The "striking power" was not to become evident until the early part of this year—in other words, during these current months of this year.
One Martin McGuinness, ignoring the fact that he has been presiding over the transfer of arms for all those six months since I illustrated the realities of the situation, now complains that some of his IRA arms have been "stolen", as if anyone would survive the customary discipline imposed on anyone who stole Mr. McGuinness's "toys" from any cupboard.
But those terrorist bodies which have transferred weapons and explosives, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—he illustrated it very vividly as a man who knows exactly what he is talking about—have now increased their domination over their own people, not the people of other religions or political beliefs. They have succeeded to a point where there now exists a reign of terror which pats the Gestapo in the shade. The terrorists groups are no longer engaged in sectarian conflict. They are now challenging Parliament and the authority of this state, the United Kingdom.
I make this special plea to all present. Surely we, as an element in the state, have a bounden duty to rescue all those law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom, whatever their political or religious views, from this ever-increasing reign of thuggery and tyranny.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I would not presume to comment on the grave concerns that have been voiced tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, and Lord Molyneaux. I was here on 3rd September and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, make the statement to which he referred. It was a chilling thought that he expressed at that time. It is of great distress to me that his optimum has not risen in the intervening period. Noble Lords who have spoken so far have long experience of the politics and pain of Northern Ireland which I cannot beg.. n to match.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are supportive of the process which led to the Good Friday agreement and beyond and which has now delivered the legislation which is before your Lordships' House. We have a few minor concerns but we shall be supporting the Government on this legislation.
Devolution is long overdue in Northern Ireland. The idea of devolution itself has been coloured by memories of failed models and troubled histories. It is particularly important that we make sure that devolution is established fairly and properly now. We hope that the order before the House this evening will do just that.
We hope that the departments envisaged by the legislation and set out by the Minister are what most people in Northern Ireland had in mind when they voted for the agreement last May. It may be that there have been increases in the number of departments and that that is done to accommodate varying interests in
90
Northern Ireland. But as long as the momentum of the peace process can be kept moving forward, we hope that these departments wilt succeed. As a reflection of the expression of the popular will the order is acceptable. We are particularly glad that there has been consultation and co-operation in the construction of the new executive. There was perhaps a time when Westminster sought to impose new structures upon the reluctant people and politicians of Northern Ireland and when anything which was imposed was doomed to failure. But we believe that this order has genuine input from local people. That gives it a greater legitimacy, which will be needed as time goes on.
There are a number of specific issues about the proposed structures with which I should like: he Minister to deal. The Department of Agriculture is being renamed the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Of course, there is much more to rural areas than farming, as we know in Wales. We welcome this symbolic shift in the department's title, which recognises this fact. We hope that the new department will have new powers and responsibilities towards rural areas; indeed, such a change would be very welcome. I am sure that many people in the rural population of Northern Ireland who are not directly involved in agriculture would readily agree with that.
We note the absence of a department of equality. This is a significant concern for many, within both the Nationalist and the Republican communities. We would like to know whether there are assurances that there will be a junior Minister responsible for equality issues; working out of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
My final point relates to tourism. There is no strategic view of tourism shown in the order. Tourism is potentially an economic lifeline to many of the hard-pressed parts of Northern Ireland. We believe that much can be done to create an alluring image of Ireland which, in the future, may give cause for optimism and dispel the more depressing opinions that many people may have about the Province. North/South co-operation on tourism could be very valuable. Tourism seems to come under the remit both of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and, so far as concerns visitor amenities, the Department of Culture, Arts arid Leisure. We hope that there will be some rationalisation of the functions which the order will transfer.
Having voiced those very minor criticisms, I reiterate that my party takes great pleasure in finding so few flaws in an order with such wide and substantial implications. Although, as I said, I pay the greatest respect to the views which have been expressed by those who know the Province so well, I hope that the order will help to bring inclusive and peaceful self government to Northern Ireland in the future.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order and for the welcome that he extended to me in my new role. I am, of course, very honoured to be given this appointment and look forward to the challenges of my task and of doing business with

91
the Minister in the manner he described. We do have a bi-partisan policy, but it is not a blank cheque. The Minister mentioned the transfer of functions order, but can he say when it will be ready and whether the difficulty is in its drafting or in securing the necessary agreement?
In his valuable contribution, my noble friend Lord Glentoran referred to the disadvantages inherent in having so many departments, as indeed did other speakers. I share his concern but, at the same time, I recognise that it may be necessary in order to have an executive and an Assembly that will he acceptable overall. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made many interesting points which were thought provoking. I shall enjoy reading them carefully in tomorrow's Hansard.
However, at present, one Minister covers health, social security and education. This could be broken up into three or four departments, each with a Minister, so it will clearly not be as efficient an administration as we have at present. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to the Treasury impact. But it is not just a question of the cost: it is the speed and efficiency of decision making. The Minister may like to reflect upon how many Ministers will be doing his job after the executive is set up.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran touched upon the security situation and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised the extremely important and sensitive issue of decommissioning and so called "punishment beatings". I believe that "mutilation assaults" would be a more accurate description. We will have a good opportunity to debate this issue next week at Starred Questions, and later that evening when we discuss the Northern Ireland decommissioning order. However, the Minister may like to check his diary, as I think he will find that the 16th is a Tuesday and not a Wednesday.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also referred to the interesting statistics published in the Belfast Telegraph. I think that they well illustrate the desire for peace in the Province, rather than a return to violence and confrontation. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the popular will: let us hope that it will prevail. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, regarding the security situation and I will be exploring it in detail next week.
Can the Minister say what is expected to happen to the non-departmental public bodies? Are they likely to continue as before, or will their functions change? Members of your Lordships' House well know how members of those organisations will feel at the moment.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the downside of the size of the executive. On that basis, we are content with the order and look forward to a successful outcome of the peace process and the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and for the support that the Government's proposals have earned here this evening. I shall deal specifically with the questions that were put to me by various noble Lords. My noble friend
92
Lord Blease asked a number of questions. I believe he referred in particular to the training that was given to members of the Assembly in recent months since the elections. I think it was called "the transition programme". There have indeed been a series of information seminars and other events for Assembly members. I shall be very happy to write to my noble friend giving him fuller details. I can only add that, in a sense, some of those events are still continuing. I am proposing to have meetings with senior members of each party as regards some of the responsibilities of one of my present departments; namely, the Department of the Environment. So it is possible that more things are happening than will be encompassed in a direct answer to my noble friend's questions. However, I shall certainly do my best to give him the information.
My noble friend talked about the state of the Northern Ireland economy. I am not sure that I agree with the pessimism that characterised his remarks. Yes, there are certainly some difficulties. The situation as regards Mackies was a real blow. But, on the other hand, there are other more optimistic indicators. There is enormous international interest in investing in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State, other Ministers, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister went on what I believe was called the "11 city tour" of North America. There was much interest in the opportunities that Northern Ireland presents and we are receiving other expressions of interest from businessmen in many countries. If one looks at the actual straightforward economic indicators—for example. economic growth, a falling level of unemployment, and so on—I should have thought that the economy of Northern Ireland is, on the whole, doing pretty well and that political stability, together with the promise of peace, will encourage the economy to do even better.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, questioned the efficiency of increasing the existing number of departments to 10, plus the new department of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. None of that concerns this Government. Those were decisions made by the political parties in Northern Ireland who were elected to the Assembly. The decisions on the number of departments and the delineation of the departments were made in long talks in Parliament buildings which ended on 18th December. I do not think it is appropriate for the noble Lord to blame the Government, if blame is an appropriate word. These were decisions made by locally elected politicians of the various parties. Those were the conclusions they reached. We are giving effect to the decisions made by those politicians.
The noble Lord also suggested that we are in a dangerous period and there is a need for a change of direction. Certainly the Secretary of State has said that the coming few weeks will be difficult. There are problems, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The Government do not minimise the difficulties that exist. On the other, hand the cease-fire still exists, even though some brutal acts are taking place. I believe someone mentioned punishment beatings, but I do not think that is the right term. However, as I said, we are satisfied that the cease-fire exists. I believe that the people of Northern

93
Ireland are grateful for that, much as everyone deplores the beatings and other brutal activities that are still continuing. We are going through a difficult phase but we have to set cur sights on the enormous prize of giving full effect to the Good Friday agreement.
If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord also suggested that too many police stations were being closed down. We would not close a police station or an Army base unless that was the advice to the Government from the chief constable and the security forces. The chief constable has said on a number of occasions that he scales down the level of his requirements in terms of security consistent: with his assessment of the security situation. We are conscious of the need to make sure that we do not go too far in that direction but that our actions are guided by the best possible advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in a somewhat pessimistic speech said that there had been too many concessions to republicans. I disagree. I do not think that is what the Government have been doing. Certainly the Good Friday agreement represented, as it were, the need for all parties to it to compromise and to make concessions. I do lot believe that the concessions have been all one way. The Government continue to endeavour to be as even-handed as possible between the various communities in Northern Ireland. That is not always easy to achieve, but we are set on doing that.
The noble Lord referred to this evening's Belfast Telegraph. Of course the vast majority of people want decommissioning to happen, as do the Government. We have said on countless occasions that it is not a matter of whether decommissioning happens, but when it is to happen. It is clear that there is pressure on the various paramilitary organisations to move towards decommissioning as quickly as possible. I share the noble Lord's concern about the various beatings and acts of bullying and intimidation that have occurred. Of course they are deplorable and of course they have no place in a civilised society. The Government have said repeatedly that they have to stop. Within recent days the Secretary of State has talked to the various political parties and has made clear her position of total opposition to those activities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his party's support for the peace process and for the general thrust of what we are doing. He asked a specific question about agriculture. Agriculture is one of my responsibilities. I am clear that the rural development aspect of the work of the Department of Agriculture, as it is now called, is an important part of our work. Indeed I think it is widely recognised that this has been successful in helping some of the poor, rural communities to overcome at least some of the disadvantages from which they suffer. As the negotiations in Brussels proceed with Agenda 2000, which has a clear element of rural development, Brussels as a whole may well be more supportive of further work in rural development in all European Union countries. The change of name is not a matter of extra resources; it is a matter of making clear the responsibilities of that department; namely, agriculture and rural development.
94
As regards the noble Lord's question about equality measures, it is for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide whether there is to be a junior Minister responsible for equality within the department of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, where responsibility for equality has been placed. It is not for the Government to determine how that is to be done; it is for the parties at the Assembly to decide.
The noble Lord also referred to tourism and its importance. Of course there has been agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on tourism in terms of north-south co-operation. The Government think tourism is important and we wan: to do all we can to encourage it. However, north-south co-operation has been identified in the Good Friday agreement as an area of possible co-operation. The decision reached by the parties at Stormont, published on 18th January 1999, states,
"A publicly owned limited company will be established by Bord Failte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to provide the following services".
There follows a list of tourism services, the planning and development of tourism, the publication and dissemination of information in overseas markets, market research and so on. In so far as the parties have reached agreement, I think it is clear that they too share the noble Lord's concern about the importance of tourism and the need for it to be an area of co-operation.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the transfer of functions order. This is a detailed order which specifies which particular Act of Parliament will be within the responsibility of any of the new departments. It is a complex task. I have seen some of the draft lists of Acts of Parliament being related to the new departments. That work is taking place at the moment and the order should be ready later this month. I do not think it will reveal a great deal. It will show long lists of legislation for those who wish to study that in detail. There is no question of disagreement on it; it is simply a matter of doing the work thoroughly and having the list prepared.
The noble Earl also asked about non-departmental public bodies and their future. There is no change proposed in this legislation. It is for the parent department, the new Ministers and the Assembly to decide what the relationship with NDPBs will be. It is for them to decide whether any individual non-departmental public body should continue to exist or if its functions should be located elsewhere. As regards the order we are discussing, no change is intended. I again thank your Lordships for the comments made.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I apologise to him and the rest of my colleagues—my noble friends on this side of the House may be grateful that I was occupied by another event—that I was not able to take part in the debate. I hope that the Minister can give me the following information, if he has it available, or write to rr e about it. Am I right in thinking that the Department of Agriculture deals with all agricultural activities both in Europe and without: food production, forestry, fresh water and sea fisheries,

95
equestrianism and horse-racing? Am I right that all these duties still come under the aegis of the Minister, and will that continue to be the case? Is anything different proposed in the order? I should indulge in a certain amount of gleeful laughter at the thought that some matters, particularly horse-racing, might be devolved to another department. Will the noble Lord write to me on that matter?
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can deal with a further matter at the same time. Does the order in any way encompass anything to do with law and order or decommissioning in the future in Northern Ireland? If decommissioning has not come into any of these orders, is it not then a matter for the standing Northern Ireland government, even under the devolved system?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, this order does not deal with criminal justice, prisons, police or security. Decommissioning was not the specific responsibility of any department, so it does not fit with the noble Lord's
96
question. Essentially, criminal justice and those other matters are reserved powers and will stay the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
As regards the question about agriculture, yes, the noble Lord is right in saying that food, agrifood development, science, veterinary matters, rural development, forestry, sea fisheries and so on all come within the new Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Inland fisheries will go to the new Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, although sea fisheries will stay with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
As regards the responsibility for horse racing and related matters, I will write to the noble Lord. It was not totally clear quite where the responsibility lay; it has lain with more than one department up to now. I think I will be more accurate if I write to him.
May I conclude by thanking your Lordships for your contributions to the debate. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Prison Population: Projections
  Prison Population: Projections
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  Chemicals in Consumer Products: Safety
  Chemicals in Consumer Products: Safety
  Organophosphorus Chemicals in Consumer Products
  Organophosphorus Chemicals in Consumer Products
  Procurement Policy
  Procurement Policy
  Hyde Park: North Carriage Drive Closure
  Hyde Park: North Carriage Drive Closure
  Peers' Attendance Record
  Peers' Attendance Record
  House of Lords: Leaking Pipework
  House of Lords: Leaking Pipework
  Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords
  Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords
  BBC World Service: Arabic Broadcasts to Iraq
  BBC World Service: Arabic Broadcasts to Iraq
  COPEX 1998 Exhibition
  COPEX 1998 Exhibition
  Firth of Forth: Proposed Special Protection Area
  Firth of Forth: Proposed Special Protection Area
  National Insurance Contributions Forecast
  National Insurance Contributions Forecast
  Cadet Force Membership and Homosexuality
  Cadet Force Membership and Homosexuality
  Defence Medical Services: Consultant Retirements
  Defence Medical Services: Consultant Retirements
  US Anti-Ballistic Missile Programmes
  US Anti-Ballistic Missile Programmes
  Advertising Material Placed on Cars
  Advertising Material Placed on Cars
  Forth Bridge: Maintenance
  Forth Bridge: Maintenance
  Satellite Launching from Floating Platforms
  Satellite Launching from Floating Platforms
  Climate Changes
  Climate Changes
  Hedgerow Protection
  Hedgerow Protection
  France: Shooting of Protected Bird Species
  France: Shooting of Protected Bird Species
  New Rail Services: Moderation of Competition Policy
  New Rail Services: Moderation of Competition Policy