Sitting of 16 February 1999

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 24 February at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Chemical and Biological Weapons
    Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement about progress towards achieving the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. [69420]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Chemical and biological weapons are banned under their respective conventions. We continue to work for universal accession to both conventions and are playing a leading role in negotiations on a protocol to strengthen the biological weapons convention. We are working hard to ensure effective global implementation of the chemical weapons convention. It is our ambition to prevent proliferation and help rid the world of those weapons of mass destruction.
    Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate the Government on their stand, particularly on the convention on chemical weapons. Does he agree with me and with the Defence Select Committee that it is crucial that, under the chemical weapons convention, we continue to encourage countries to lay open their pharmaceutical industry for inspection, to ensure that all countries—including, of course, Iraq—are aware of exactly what is being produced?
    Mr. Lloyd: Unfortunately, Iraq is not a state party to the chemical weapons convention—which gives us a problem, and is why more direct action to degrade Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability was necessary in recent weeks. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that, if we are to rid the world of those weapons, we need not only processes to prevent the export of relevant
    714
    technologies, but systems of verification and of challenge inspections, to ensure that those who want to flout the convention are brought to book.
    Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister think that it would be appropriate to send international inspectors to Sudan to check whether the factory that was bombed by the United States was making weapons of mass destruction, or aspirins?
    Mr. Lloyd: Obviously that is a question for the Government of Sudan. Undoubtedly, it would help enormously if Sudan were to join as party to the chemical weapons convention and—were it so to do—specifically to accept the regime of challenge inspections and verification. That would put the matter beyond all doubt.
    Mr. George Galloway: Why is it a matter for the Government of Sudan? The United States Government launched a devastating blitzkrieg of cruise missiles on a pharmaceuticals factory on the basis of evidence that Kroll Associates—the respected New York investigators—in a report this week, said was "totally wrong". Will the Minister now say publicly, in the interests of proving that we have an independent foreign policy, what I know to be the Foreign Office's private view—that the attack on Sudan was a terrible, ghastly mistake?
    Mr. Lloyd: The United States Government's public position, which my hon. Friend knows very well, is to hold to the view that the factory was being used for the production of chemical weapons. I simply repeat what I said to the House: the way for Sudan to move forward in the matter is to adhere to the chemical weapons convention, and to accept the verification procedures and challenge inspections.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister and I can agree that a fundamental objective of foreign policy must be the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. However, we must not forget the accompanying technology and delivery systems. Will the Minister confirm the alarming reports that Russia is not only supplying technology illegally to Iraq, but has plans to provide Syria with a ballistic missile capability, and has thousands of Russians working on the development of Iran's nuclear, chemical and biological programmes? Does he agree that the Russians' actions dramatically escalate security risks in the region? Will he tell the House what he is doing, either directly with Russia or at the United Nations, to discourage Russia from rearming Iraq and increasing tensions in the middle east?
    Mr. Lloyd: Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov has categorically denied those stories, which is important. We always treat with concern any stories—from whatever source—about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Within those terms, the matter has been raised with the Russians. I can repeat what I said: we have no evidence to suggest that there is any truth in the stories. I should tell the House—although I am sorry to have to raise a political note—that the previous Conservative Government were prepared to arm the Iraqi Government and Saddam Hussein. In so doing, they were prepared to breach any concept of international law, and they dictated who built weapons of mass destruction.

    Agenda 2000
    Mr. David Watts: What representations he has received about Agenda 2000 in respect of enlargement of the Union; and if he will make a statement. [69421]
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What representations he has received about Agenda 2000 in relation to European institutions; and if he will make a statement. [69428]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We are in regular contact on Agenda 2000 with consumer groups, regional organisations and the business and farming communities. In the negotiations, we support the Commission's proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly the cut in intervention prices, which will bring annual savings of £80 a year for the typical British family.
    We support streamlining the structural funds, and will work to preserve the current proposals, which will make the United Kingdom one of only two member states to receive an increase in the number of areas covered by objective 1. We shall press vigorously for stabilisation of Europe's budget at broadly the level of the current year, and have made it plain that the case for the British rebate is as compelling as ever.
    Enlargement of the European Union is an historic opportunity to unite east and west. In order to afford enlargement, the European Union must get spending under control. We are determined that it should do so.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that it is a sad indictment of the policies of the previous Government that Britain has some of the poorest regions and some of the richest? Will he do all that he can to ensure that structural funds continue to go to the areas that need them to try to bridge that gap?
    Mr. Cook: As I have told the House, we shall have an increased number of areas covered by objective 1 structural funds. That should not give hon. Members any comfort, because it reflects the extent to which those regions have suffered over the past two decades, since they were last looked at. We are determined to ensure that they have every opportunity to recover from their current position. We shall ensure that they are supported by appropriate Government measures.
    Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reform of the common agricultural policy is inextricably linked to European Union enlargement? Would he like to contrast the Government's attitude with the little England mentality of the Conservative party—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is not the Foreign Secretary's responsibility. Will the hon. Gentleman finish his question?
    Mr. Quinn: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
    Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that the Labour party's policies are seen to flourish at the forthcoming negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy and European Union enlargement?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's question speaks for itself. [Laughter.] I do not know what the Conservatives find funny about the fact that they were unable to make progress on the beef ban for two years. We have made progress through constructive engagement. Through our approach to Agenda 2000, we are likely to achieve prices in cereals and beef that will be broadly comparable to world prices. That was never secured by the previous Administration over 18 years. The rest of the nation may laugh at the Conservatives' record, but Conservative Members have nothing to laugh about.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he accepts the recommendation of the International Development Select Committee on Agenda 2000—that all development should be undertaken by one commissioner, so that the whole development budget can be combined in a managerially and administratively sensible way?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have considerable concerns about the European Union's development budget. It does not follow the policy, which we have adopted strongly, of targeting help on the poorest people in the poorest countries. As Britain is increasing its development budget thanks to the Government's policies, we can speak with authority on the issue and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Michael Trend: Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an absolute assurance that the British rebate is non-negotiable?
    Mr. Cook: Yes.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Madam Speaker, I apologise for having called you Madam Deputy Speaker last week.
    Madam Speaker: I said that the hon. Member would never be called again. It shows what a softy I am.
    Mr. Marshall: It shows that we can both make mistakes.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the need to reform the structural funds. Britain is also keen on reform of the cohesion fund, but Spain—a main beneficiary of the fund—is violently opposed to the proposals. Is there any evidence that Spain might be adopting positions on other issues affecting UK-Spanish relations to change our stance on the cohesion fund?
    Mr. Cook: Spain's position on Gibraltar existed long before the cohesion fund was invented. It is our view that as the cohesion fund was invented to prepare countries for membership of the single currency, it is illogical to continue with that fund once they are actually in the single currency. In those circumstances, we remain to be convinced of the case for the cohesion fund.

    Dependent Territories
    Mr. Michael Colvin: When he expects to make an announcement on the outcome of his review of Britain's dependent territories. [69422]
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to visit the island of St. Helena to discuss his White Paper on British dependent territories. [69423]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I intend to publish the White Paper on overseas territories during the week commencing 15 March. The White Paper will provide a comprehensive review of Britain's relations with its overseas territories, including their relationship with the Foreign Office, their financial regulation and protection of their rich environmental heritage.
    In preparing the White Paper, we have consulted closely with the Government of St. Helena and the other overseas territories. We believe that they will broadly welcome our proposals.
    Mr. Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that no overseas territory is causing more concern to Parliament at present than Gibraltar? What will his review say about the future sovereignty of Gibraltar? Will he take the opportunity of the publication of the review to say what he will do about the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty which, at the moment, are sitting in his pending tray? If those proposals are clearly rejected—as they should be, if he is to follow the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and, I believe, of this House—what alternative proposals will he put on the table?
    Mr. Cook: The Spanish Foreign Minister's proposal was tabled at a meeting of the Brussels process. The Brussels process was, of course, agreed to by the previous Conservative Government, and committed Britain to discuss once a year with Spain the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. When the Spanish Foreign Minister tabled proposals on the transfer of sovereignty in 1985, the Conservative Government left them lying on the table not for 15 months, but for eight years. At that meeting of the Brussels process, I undertook to give a reply at the next meeting. However, I said at the time that there would be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. That was our position at the last meeting—it will be our position at the next meeting as well.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement this afternoon that the White Paper will be published next month, but does he agree that we now need speed in bringing St. Helena back into the British family, from which it was ejected in 1981—against its wishes—by the previous Government? Can we have an assurance that, before the millennium, St. Helena will be back in the British family?
    Mr. Cook: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will publish the White Paper in the week commencing 15 March. He will understand that I cannot anticipate what may be in the contents of that White Paper. I look forward to answering a question on the same subject come that day.
    Mr. Phil Sawford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that the Government are
    718
    making on the White Paper. Those of us who have constituents from St. Helena are well aware of the complexity of the issue, and of the problems of the island—high unemployment, a lack of opportunity and a heavy reliance on budgetary aid. Will he assure us that he will give sympathetic consideration in the review to the wish of the people of St. Helena for full British citizenship?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue has been pressed upon us by the Government of St. Helena—and by the Governments of some other overseas territories—and that we are well aware of the real concern. I entirely share my hon. Friend's other point of concern about the economy of St. Helena, which is one of the two overseas territories in receipt of overseas aid from Britain. It requires such assistance, and we are continuing to commit ourselves to make sure that we achieve economic reconstruction within St. Helena.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the overseas territories review address the democratic deficit in the overseas territories, whose Parliament is this place and whose Foreign Secretary is my right hon. Friend, but for whom there is no access to Westminster? Should not the Government follow the Parliaments of France, the Netherlands and Spain—as well as the US Congress—which give representation in the main legislature to overseas territories? Is it not time that a Labour Government addressed themselves to enfranchising these people?
    Mr. Cook: There is not universal demand from the overseas territories for such representation, primarily because we have much stronger decentralisation for their government than is practised in France, which retains some central control; but I assure my hon. Friend that the people continue to have direct access to myself and my Ministers, and one of the proposals in the White Paper is to provide a better structure for more regular dialogue.
    Mr. Michael Howard: When, in January 1997, the Spanish Foreign Minister proposed joint sovereignty for Gibraltar, within days, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, said:
    "The idea is a non-starter. The simple point is that Gibraltar people want to remain British citizens. And that is the end of the matter."
    Will the Foreign Secretary repeat his predecessor's words?
    Mr. Cook: The fact is that no proposals were tabled in January 1997. There was an oral discussion between the two Foreign Ministers, as there has been between me and Mr. Matutes on six occasions in the past year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is imagining any U-turn, weakening or retreat in the British position. As I have said to the Spanish Foreign Minister and to the House, the Government's position is that there can be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the Gibraltar people. Their views on the matter are sovereign. We stand firmly by the commitment given by a previous Labour Government in 1969—that the people of Gibraltar will freely and democratically decide whether there should be any transfer of sovereignty.

    719
    The only people to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving comfort by imagining that there is a U-turn are the Government of Spain. If he really wants to convince them that Britain is firm, it is about time that he said that there is no sign of weakening by the Government, who are backed by a united, not a divided Parliament.

    United Nations
    Ms Julia Drown: If he will make a statement about arrangements for financing the United Nations. [69424]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We continue to promote the European Union's proposals for reform of the arrangements for financing the United Nations, which are designed to reflect more closely countries' capacity to pay. We believe that the proposals represent the best way of resolving the current crisis in funding. At the end of 1998, the United Nations was owed over $2 billion by member states. We urge all United Nations member states to pay their dues promptly, in full and without conditions, as the United Kingdom does.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, although I am concerned at its content. Over the past decade, 2 million children have been killed in war, and many more have been left disabled and homeless. The world looks to the United Nations to help to solve the conflicts that result in those deaths. How can the United Nations function without the funds that it requires to do its work? Will my hon. Friend make urgent representations to the right-wing Republicans on Capitol hill, and make it clear that they are acting irresponsibly and that children's lives depend on their agreeing to pay their dues without further delay?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The simple reality is that a United Nations that is owed $2 billion is not in a proper position to do all the work that we ask of it. We want a more efficient United Nations, but we do not necessarily want a cheapskate United Nations that cannot do the job that the world wants it to do. That is why we as a Government are the biggest single funder of, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights. Now that President Clinton is firmly back in the saddle, it is incumbent on the United States Congress to accept that it must pay the United Nations what it owes.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: hi view of the American Government's lamentable record on the funding of the United Nations and their persistent default in stumping up what they owe, would the Minister support a proposition that the UN headquarters should move to London, at the very centre of the European Union, removing it from the ambit of the rather more absurd American views on it?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman certainly seems to have created a popular movement among Government Back Benchers; but there is no proper proposal to remove the United Nations from New York. The reality is that
    720
    both New York as a city and the United States as a country do very well out of the presence of the UN on their territory. That is why we expect Congress to come up with the money that it owes.

    Kosovo
    Mr. David Lock: If he will make a statement on progress on peace in Kosovo. [69425]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Along with my colleague the French Foreign Minister, I have been acting as co-chairman of the peace talks at Rambouillet. We have tabled a framework agreement and other texts that provide for a democratic, self-governing Kosovo.
    Both delegations have got down to serious work on the texts, and have prepared detailed comments and amendments. It has not yet been possible to bring both sides together to negotiate on their amendments, mainly because of the insistence by the Serbs that both sides should first sign the statement of principles.
    I return to Rambouillet tomorrow with the French Foreign Minister, when we will strongly remind both sides that the Contact Group requires them to conclude negotiations by Saturday. In my statement to the House two weeks ago, I warned that I could not guarantee that the talks would necessarily end in agreement. I regret to say that that remains the case today.
    Mr. Lock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him on the steps that have been taken so far to bring the sides together. Conservative Members have been liberal with their criticisms of my right hon. Friend, but I assure him that there is an appreciation, on these Benches and throughout Europe, that without his personal contribution, the talks might never have got going. Will he confirm that, if the talks are successful and there is a settlement, British ground troops under British control will be committed to Kosovo to ensure that the humanitarian atrocities that have afflicted the region in recent months will not be repeated?
    Mr. Cook: It is indeed the case that Britain as a whole can take some pride in the work that is being done by its officials to secure those talks. It was, after all, Britain that drafted the key texts at New York and at the Contact Group meeting in London, and which played an important part in getting agreement in the North Atlantic Council. I am glad that our efforts have managed to bring together both sides for these talks.
    However, the talks will be a success only if we get agreement by the end of them. I confirm to my hon. Friend that we are willing to commit British troops as part of an international force to provide stability in Kosovo so that a political settlement can take root, but they will go there only if there is a clear commitment to a political settlement. I hope that that will increase the pressure at Rambouillet to reach agreement.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, if troops are deployed in Kosovo, they will have to go for more than six months? With one division deployed indefinitely in Bosnia, the possible deployment of a corps headquarters and a brigade to

    721
    Kosovo would drive a coach and horses through the central assumption of the strategic defence review about the full defence structure required by the United Kingdom. Will the Foreign Secretary recommend to the Prime Minister that there should be a review of the full structure, and of the Army in particular, so that he can continue to pursue the foreign policy that he is pursuing at present?
    Mr. Cook: We have only just completed a defence review that has been widely praised around Europe and which is currently being copied by a number of allies. The outcome of that review was in stark contrast to the repeated cuts, which amounted to a third of British forces' capacity, made under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported—and during his time as an adviser at the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Any fair person must congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way that he and his French counterpart have acted, and would hope and pray that there will be a successful conclusion. The success, or otherwise, of the negotiations will determine the success of the Washington NATO summit in April. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not a laboratory experiment, but a practical experience of Europe working with the United States for proper ends?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right, in that the drafting of the strategic concept for discussion at the forthcoming NATO summit envisages that organisation playing an important part in crisis management and crisis intervention. However, if such an international force is to be provided for Kosovo, we would want it to go beyond NATO, and would hope that some of NATO's other partners for peace would also play a part and help to provide a truly multinational force.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary is right to be cautious about the prospects of a successful agreement. May I press him, however? If there is no successful agreement, there will, of course, be no NATO ground forces in Kosovo, but the threat of air strikes will remain. What would be the strategic and military purpose of air strikes if no agreement can be reached? Would the purpose be, as has been reported recently, to break Belgrade's hold on Kosovo by degrading its military infrastructure?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that there is no question of NATO ground troops being provided if there is no settlement. We shall not fight our way in. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to say that a NATO decision already provides Javier Solana with the power to activate military action against Belgrade in the event of Belgrade not complying with the Contact Group's demands. The objective of such action, and of the threat of such action, is to try to secure the compliance of Belgrade. At present, we are still working to achieve a successful outcome, and that must be our priority for the next four days.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If there is an agreement and troops go to Kosovo, can my right hon. Friend assure us that they will be sufficiently well
    722
    equipped either to extricate themselves or to defend themselves adequately if there is any danger of the ceasefire breaking down? The experience of Bosnia has been one of mission creep, and many of us are concerned that we cannot be sure at the start of a process just where it will lead in some months' time.
    Mr. Cook: The lesson of Bosnia is, indeed, that one should not commit forces unless they have the capacity both to defend themselves and to enforce their mandate. That is why the proposed force for Kosovo is significantly greater than the one deployed in Bosnia in the early years. As my hon. Friend may know, we are already embarking heavy equipment as a contingency plan, in case we need to commit British troops, as we want that equipment to be available in advance.
    Mr. Michael Howard: We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his attempts to broker an agreement on Kosovo. We support his efforts and we hope that they will succeed.
    But will the Foreign Secretary now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Minister for Defence Procurement told the other place last week that deployment of British troops in Kosovo would add greatly to overstretch in the Army. We were constantly told that the strategic defence review was driven by the Foreign Office, so do the Government intend to revise the SDR or to adjust their foreign policy?
    Mr. Cook: There is no point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman rising at the Dispatch Box to wish us well in the talks, but then trying to knock away one of the main incentives for reaching agreement. We are clear on two points. First, the Chief of the Defence Staff has been fully involved in our decisions, and I am sure that he would have made no irresponsible decision. [Interruption.] I do not see why any hon. Member should find that amusing.
    Secondly, we are conscious of our own role in the alliance. It is broadly agreed that the core of provision for Kosovo should be the ARRC—Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—headquarters. Britain has for decades been the lead nation there, and it would gravely undermine our standing in NATO if we were to walk away from that responsibility. We intend to fulfil our responsibility, and we are conscious of having a much better prepared military posture than we inherited from the previous Government after 10 years of cuts.
    Mr. Howard: No one is suggesting that the Government should walk away from that responsibility. As I have repeatedly said, we support the Government's efforts. But the Minister of Defence Procurement, at least, was aware of the questions posed for overstretch within the British Army. The question is: will the Government look again at the strategic defence review, or will they look again at their foreign policy in view of the great overstretch conceded by that Minister?
    Mr. Cook: I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have no intention of looking again, as he puts it, at the foreign policy that is committed to trying

    723
    to achieve peace in the Balkans. I wish that, just once, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could rise to express his support without immediately following it by a "but".

    Cyprus
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to efforts to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem. [R] [69426]
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: When he next plans to visit Cyprus to discuss with the parties the end of the division of that island. [69431]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We remain committed to resolving the tragedy of Cyprus's division. We continue to believe that the best means of achieving a solution is on the basis laid down in UN Security Council resolutions for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Therefore, we welcome UN Security Council resolution 1218, adopted on 22 December 1998, which sets out clear and far-reaching objectives for reducing tension and for progress towards a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement in Cyprus.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was some concern on the island at the recent comments of Sir David Hannay? Therefore, I welcome the Government's reaffirmation of the policy of looking to a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and on a single sovereignty. Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the decision of the Cyprus Government not to take S300 missiles on to the island? Also, does she agree that one of the best ways forward is to work towards a more general demilitarisation of Cyprus as a step towards a settlement of the tragedy that has been taking place there for 25 years?
    Ms Quin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to welcome the decision of President Clerides not to deploy those missiles, which will both reduce tension and help Cyprus to accede to the European Union. Having seen the transcript of what Sir David Hannay said, I am satisfied that his remarks were misrepresented. Indeed, in various meetings, including one with the high commissioner for Cyprus here in London, he and I have reaffirmed that there is no change in our policy on Cyprus.
    Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister agree that, given the unilateral decision of the Cypriot Government not to deploy missiles to reduce tension, as she put it, and the complete lack of any countervailing contribution from the regime in the north of Cyprus to reduce any part of the military presence there, the only answer is to press forward as fast as possible towards accession to the European Union at least for the south of the island—hopefully, to be followed one day by the north?
    Ms Quin: The accession process is on track in terms of the examination by the European Commission of the various dossiers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have
    724
    always hoped that the accession process could provide a catalyst towards the settlement of the Cyprus problem, and we still want to concentrate minds on that possibility.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most useful ways in which we could ease the situation in Cyprus is through increasing the number of intercommunal exchanges? Therefore, will she join me in commending the recent successful visit of 1,280 Turkish Cypriot Muslims to the Hala Sultan Tekke shrine in Larnaca and in hoping that there will be similar exchanges for Greek Cypriot pilgrims, for example, to visit the Apostolos Andreas monastery in the far north of the Karpasia peninsula, and even the church of Ayios Mamas in Morphou?
    Ms Quin: I agree that initiatives to try to increase contacts between the communities are worth while. Those initiatives, along with others with which the friends of Cyprus, including Members of Parliament, have been involved are welcome and we wish to encourage them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In seeking to follow up the constructive question of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), does the Minister accept that, if we are to achieve lasting peace and unity in Cyprus, we must carry with us in achieving that objective not only Turkey but the Turkish Cypriots? Cyprus has had a sad history in the past 30 years. What action are the British Government taking to work more closely with Turkey, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and has given that body great support, and with those responsible Turkish Cypriots who want a united Ireland—[Interruption.] That was merely a Freudian slip, Madam Speaker. I should have said a united island—hon. Members misunderstood my Cheshire accent. What action are the Government taking to work more closely with Turkey and with the Turkish Cypriot Administration to get greater co-operation on the ultimate unity of Cyprus?
    Ms Quin: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman's comments signalled a dramatic shift in his party's policy on a variety of issues. He and I can at least join in saying that we are interested in promoting peace processes; and we are certainly interested in doing that in Cyprus. We engage in dialogue with Turkey and try to promote measures to build confidence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We support the work of Sir David Hannay and of Dame Anne Hercus, who is doing a good job on the island of Cyprus trying to bring communities together and to find ways of solving the long-term problem.
    Mr. Tom Cox: The whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. She will be aware that there have been many disappointments in attempts to achieve a settlement in Cyprus, none more acute than on the return of Famagusta, which would benefit both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Will she give an assurance to the House and to the people of Cyprus that the return of Famagusta is a Government priority?
    Ms Quin: We have raised the issue of Famagusta and Varosha on many occasions, but my hon. Friend will

    725
    accept that the best way to make progress is to continue to press the various initiatives taking place within both the United Nations and the European Union towards a comprehensive settlement.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What steps he is taking to monitor human rights abuses in Pakistan. [69427]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): During my visit to Pakistan last week, I raised with the Minister for Justice a number of concerns about human rights.
    Mr. Brazier: Is the Minister concerned about the arrest earlier this month of four leading members of Pakistan's third-largest party, the Mohajir Qaumi Movement; and about the considerable evidence of religious persecution side by side with political persecution, including the fact that five Christians currently await trial under Islamic blasphemy laws? Is the Minister willing to use this country's considerable leverage—Pakistan is a recipient of aid from us and is a full member of the Commonwealth once more—to make those points strongly to the Pakistani Government? Is he willing to receive written representations from the MQM on the political matters and from Christian rights organisations?
    Mr. Fatchett: Last week, I took the opportunity to stress our concerns about the need to maintain religious freedom, which is part of Pakistan's written constitution. The Minister for Justice reassured me that the Government were committed to that constitution and would try to implement it. What is important is that practice coincides with the written letter of the law, and we shall certainly take every action possible to ensure that that step is taken and that there is religious freedom in Pakistan.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read last week's debate on human rights for women, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer)? May I draw the House's attention to the fact that, under the Zina laws and Huddood ordinances, women in Pakistan are quite often denied basic human rights? Dreadful practices often take place. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister take up directly with the Government of Pakistan the need to get rid of those unjust laws?
    Mr. Fatchett: I assure my hon. Friend that I took up those points last week: I expressed our concern that there should be equality before the law and that women in Pakistan should enjoy the same rights as men. I also stressed to the Ministers I met that the increasing influence of the Taliban on Pakistan is a detrimental and negative influence, on which the Government in Pakistan should keep a close watch.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Ahmadiyya community have their European conference centre in my constituency, and they report a series of deplorable human rights abuses, including lack of freedom of religion, speech or assembly. They know that
    726
    the Government have said that human rights are at the heart of their policy, but what substance is behind the rhetoric? Is there any hope for practical improvement for them and their families in Pakistan?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can only repeat to the right hon. Lady the point that I have just made to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), which is that we are concerned about religious freedom in Pakistan. Pakistan's written constitution states that individuals should have a right to practise their faith, but clearly that right is not always honoured in practice. I assure the right hon. Lady that we shall continue to make the strongest possible representations to the Government of Pakistan that people should enjoy their rights under their country's constitution.

    Palestinian Authority
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What steps he is taking to support the Palestinian Authority in developing a sound economy. [69429]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We actively support the Palestinian economy through an extensive programme of bilateral aid and our contribution to EC aid programmes. We announced last November that we shall provide over £50 million in bilateral aid during the next three years. That aid will not only help to develop health and infrastructure facilities and support refugees, but provide technical support for training economic experts for the technical assistance unit of the Palestinian Authority. That brings our total bilateral aid since the signature of the Oslo accords to £122 million.
    Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Palestinian Authority in providing what is perceived to be clean and successful government is very much in the interests of all the countries in the area? Will he urge all those concerned, including the United States, to facilitate the access of Palestinian goods to world markets as a contribution to that success?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises two points. First, it is important, as he rightly says, that the Palestinian Authority is transparent and accountable, and it is important for donor countries that there is clear accountability in the use of aid. Secondly, the best way forward for the Palestinian economy is to be able to trade with the rest of the world, and we should like such opportunities to open up for the Palestinians.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome that answer, but is the Minister aware that, since the authority's formation, Palestinians' annual income per capita has fallen from $1,700 a few years ago to $1,400? Is he aware that that is partly due to the corruption in the Palestinian Authority? Is he aware that, among all the squalor in the area, some 100 families are building large villas, almost palaces? What can the Government do to ensure that corruption is stamped out and that aid from the United Kingdom and the European Union gets to the people that we are trying to help?
    Mr. Fatchett: It is crucial that there is transparency in the use of UK and European Commission aid, and we

    727
    shall continue to argue for that. Since the Oslo accords, the living standards of the average Palestinian have declined. We need to address the crucial questions in the middle east relating to the peace process and we have to give Palestinians the belief that peace will bring prosperity. I hope that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority recognise the commitments that they have made under the Wye River accords and that they honour them and implement them in full.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I take up my right hon. Friend's previous answer and ask him what pressure the Government are putting on the Israeli Government to implement the Wye River accords and not to put them on hold until after the general election? Those accords were made with the state, not with whichever party happens to be in government.
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—the agreement was made on behalf of the state of Israel. There is no opt-out clause stating that the agreement should be put on hold while a general election takes place. It is our strong belief that the commitments made by both parties under the Wye River accords should be implemented in full and we call on the Palestinians and the Israelis to do just that.

    EU (Veto)
    Mr. Howard Flight: What recent discussions he has held with his European counterparts on the continuation of the national veto. [69430]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The veto has not figured in recent discussions held by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or by me. A decision will be taken at the European Council in Cologne in June on when and how to discuss institutional reform in preparation for enlargement. No proposals are on the table.
    Mr. Flight: Is it the Government's policy to resist absolutely to give an inch—or perhaps I should say a centimetre—in terms of our veto power? Can the Minister confirm that the Government are opposed to any attempts under the Amsterdam treaty to use the power of the courts, especially in the area of tax harmonisation and the common European withholding tax, to get around the powers of our veto to block such measures?
    Ms Quin: Taxation is one of the matters on which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that unanimity should remain. There are other matters too, which we have listed, such as treaty changes, defence and immigration. However, the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter sits ill with the Conservative Government's record on both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act, whereby, as he knows, majority voting was extended dramatically.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the veto is the ultimate preserver of the national interest, threatening to use it at the start of any discussions with our European partners in intergovernmental negotiations actually serves to
    728
    undermine the British national interest? If any demonstration of that were wanted, we need only look back to the beef crisis, when the Conservative party in government threatened our European partners with everything bar nuking them and got absolutely nowhere—but, within 18 months, the Labour Government got the ban lifted.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Certainly, on issues such as tax harmonisation, on which we obviously have several allies, it is absurd to start from the presumption that we are in an isolated position.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary was very dismissive of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for implying that we might be less than firm in defence of the British rebate. Can the right hon. Lady reiterate, without any equivocation whatever, that, if the British rebate were to be reduced, Her Majesty's Government would forthwith issue a veto on that proposal?
    Ms Quin: I am always delighted to repeat guarantees given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Brazil
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on his policy relating to Brazil following the recent economic turbulence there. [69434]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Brazil remains by far our largest market in Latin America and we are committed to strengthening our trade and investment links with that country.
    The Government support the Brazilian programme of fiscal adjustment agreed with the International Monetary Fund and welcome the Brazilian Government's commitment to continue with the reform process.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend. Will he press the Brazilian Government to ensure that, in their stabilisation process, poorer and more vulnerable people are given as much protection as possible? More generally, does not the economic crisis in Brazil underline the importance of the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in creating new international arrangements to assist world financial stability—in contrast to the previous Government, who saw no further than boom and bust?
    Mr. Lloyd: On the second point, of course my hon. Friend is right; he has a particular interest in Brazil. The record of the previous Government was poor in terms of not only Brazil but the whole international financial system. Not only have the present Government given considerable support—some $2.25 billion—to the Brazilian economy directly, but the Government. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, have been concerned to ensure, through the G7 and elsewhere, that the global financial system works to move to greater stability, greater transparency, the introduction of codes of conduct, and practical co-operation between regulators: practical efforts to ensure that this financial crisis can be brought to a speedy end.

    729
    On the issue of protecting the poorest people in Brazil, we shall argue, both in our direct relations with Brazil and in our consultations with the IMF, that the most vulnerable must be protected.

    EU (Political Integration)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with his German counterpart about the prospects for political integration within the EU. [69435]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I maintain close contact with Joschka Fischer. Last month in Brussels, I expressed our support for the priorities that he has set for the German presidency: employment, Agenda 2000 and enlargement. The German presidency has not made any proposals for integration part of its agenda, and nor have we.
    Mr. Loughton: What did the German Foreign Minister mean when he told the European Parliament last month that political union must be our lodestar from now on? More important, what did he tell the Foreign Secretary he meant by that statement?
    Mr. Cook: The German Foreign Minister set out for the European Parliament a broad visionary statement which was a characteristic expression of the German vision of Europe. It happens not to be one that we share; nor have we shared that vision over many years. Our position is closer to that expressed by President Chirac last week, when he called not for a united states of Europe but for a united Europe of states. That statement shows clearly that we have many friends in trying to fashion a Europe in which we work together when we have common interests, but preserve our national identities and ensure that there is decentralisation wherever possible.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: As my right hon. Friend said, is it not a fact that the German Government have exactly the same priorities as the British Government within the European Union: jobs, securing European enlargement and making Europe work positively? That is better than an obsession with the silly things, which the Conservative party continues to pursue.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we share fully the priorities of the German presidency. We think that Germany is absolutely right in putting jobs at the top of the agenda. We intend to work with Germany in making practical progress on the things that really matter to our people. That is—to coin a phrase—the British way.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely the Foreign Secretary cannot pick and mix the bits that he likes and the bits that he does not like from the German Foreign Minister's comments. Is it not a fact that the German Foreign Minister—a man elected to that position on less than 7 per cent. of the popular vote achieved by his party under proportional representation—has said time and again that he envisages the European Union serving the purpose of political union? Why does the Foreign Secretary not disown that statement if he does not believe it?
    Mr. Cook: Whenever the German Foreign Minister makes a specific proposal with which we disagree or
    730
    which we believe will not be in the British interest, we will oppose it. However, I rather doubt whether it would assist my relations with Germany if I were to suggest to the German Foreign Minister that he lacks a popular mandate.

    Latvia
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What plans he has to improve relations with Latvia. [69436]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The United Kingdom enjoys excellent relations with Latvia. We plan to enhance our bilateral co-operation programmes, which are designed to help Latvia's preparations for membership of the European Union and to improve Latvia's defence capabilities.
    Trade with Latvia is growing at a healthy rate. Latvia, together with Estonia and Lithuania, is included in the new trade and investment initiative "Opportunities in Central Europe", run by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 9 February.
    Mr. Flynn: Is it not a matter of congratulations and satisfaction for all those concerned that the rebirth of democracy in the three Baltic states has gone ahead so peacefully, despite the great potential for divisions between ethnic minorities both within those countries and outside their borders? When members of our sister Parliament, the Saeima, visit us next month, will it be possible to give the Latvians, and pass on to the Lithuanians, an assurance that the breach that has occurred in progress towards European unity—involving Estonia and Europe, the other Baltic states and the unfortunate difference in pace—may be put right by ensuring that the Baltic states proceed towards joining the European family of nations together? Estonia does not need to take the lead.
    Ms Quin: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in seeking to build good relations between this Parliament and the Parliaments of the Baltic states.
    With regard to European Union accession, we believe strongly that membership should be dealt with on its merits. Therefore, we support the approach that the Commission has taken. However, we are very pleased at the way in which the prospect of European Union membership has encouraged changes in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. That was witnessed in the favourable result achieved in the Latvian referendum on nationality issues, which we believe was a step forward in the treatment of minorities in that country.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the recent spate of bombings in Latvia, what advice is the Foreign Office giving to visitors to that country?
    Ms Quin: I am not aware that we have changed travel advice recently with regard to Latvia, but, if what I say is not correct, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Genetically Modified Food
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo (by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the safety of genetically modified food.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government are fully committed to ensuring the safety of food. All genetically modified foods and food ingredients go through a process of very thorough scrutiny by a committee of experts, known as the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The committee advises the Government and has a remit to examine all novel foods—genetically modified and otherwise. Such foods are also scrutinised by equivalent bodies in all other member states, to ensure that no food comes on to the market unless it is safe.
The committee, which was established in 1988, has members from universities and research institutes who are experts in their fields and are fully up to date with the latest scientific thinking. There are two lay members whose respective roles are to advise on ethical issues and the consumer aspect, and to see that the scientific experts pay attention to the concerns of the wider public. Since May 1997 the committee has been taking steps to become increasingly open, and now publishes all its agendas, minutes and a note of the outcome of each meeting.
The products that have been authorised—which was some time ago—have all been through that rigorous process.
We are also committed to the principle of consumer choice. The Government are determined that all foods containing GM material should be clearly labelled. We are now leading the way in Europe in this regard by also requiring the provision of information in catering establishments. We are taking steps to ensure that local authorities have all the necessary powers to enforce those requirements. In addition, we are pressing the European Commission to introduce proposals for the labelling of animal feeds as quickly as possible.
Choice also means having access to alternatives. That is why the Government have published a list of 59 companies from which food manufacturers can obtain non-GM soya. That list was published almost 12 months ago.
We believe that all that adds up to a system in which consumers can have confidence.
Much of the recent debate inside and outside the House has unhelpfully confused the two issues of food safety and protection of the environment. There have been many attempts to generalise from findings in laboratories at the experimental stages.
Genetic modification is a development that has huge potential to benefit society in various ways—not least the possibility that it might eventually prevent us from having to pour thousands of tonnes of chemicals on to our foods as we grow them. However, it is important that the end products be put on the market only after the most careful scrutiny of their effects on human health.
We believe that we have a robust and open system for ensuring that the consumer is fully protected, but that those who so wish can choose whether to purchase those
732
products. Above all, it is the Government's first priority to ensure that the safety of consumers is fully protected, and that will remain the case.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, and only sorry that he is not supported in the Chamber by the Minister of Agriculture or by a single member of the Cabinet.
Does the Minister understand that public confidence in the safety of food that contains genetically modified ingredients is being damaged every day by the Government's mishandling of the issue? Is he aware that there are real anxieties about the environmental impact of commercial planting of genetically modified crops in a small country such as Britain, whose topography is so different from that of the United States?
Why will not the Government take the advice of English Nature—that the current research into the environmental effects of GM crops should be completed before approval is given for their commercial release? Does he accept that that will take at least three or four years?
Will the Minister explain why the Minister for the Environment, who is not present, told the Sunday Herald last weekend that no commercial planting would take place until next year, although the Minister told the House only two weeks ago that planting might start this year? Will the Minister announce today that there will be a three-year delay before herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops can be commercially planted?
Will the Minister explain what the Government are doing in response to health fears about the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes? Does he understand that a Government who get their friends to suppress the publication of inconvenient research findings, who accept sponsorship from companies involved in promoting the commercial growth of genetically modified crops, and who refuse to publish the advice that they receive on this sensitive issue do not deserve the public's trust?
Why will not the Prime Minister tell us whether he is under pressure from President Clinton, who is known to be close to Monsanto on this subject? Do the Government realise that, although better labelling is an urgent and top priority—I welcome the Minister's reference to it—its value is inevitably limited because of the failure to segregate genetically modified from conventional crops?
Does the Minister understand that the Conservative party fully supports the current research programme into genetically modified crops, including the field-scale trials? We want that research programme to be completed. Does he share our view that the only way to restore public confidence in foods which may be safe and technology which may be beneficial is to recognise the environmental and the health worries, and ensure that future policy decisions are taken in a more open way by Ministers whose independence and integrity can be relied on?
Mr. Rooker: I shall do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's points. He started by saying that there is a lack of public confidence in genetically modified food and then touched on environmental issues. I want to explain: the only foods on sale that are genetically modified are a tomato paste, which was approved in September 1994; soya beans, which were approved in February 1995;

733
and maize, which was first approved in 1996—plus four further varieties, which were approved in January and February 1997.
All that information is not secret; it was known. I remind the House that every hon. Member recently received from me a brochure on the work of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, setting out the dates. Those foods went through that regulatory process. In my initial answer, I explained what we have done to toughen that process up: publishing the minutes and the agendas of that committee will let everyone know that it has decided not to approve a food. Decisions are no longer taken behind closed doors.
I also said that there had been a change of policy regarding labelling. The policy that we inherited was to oppose the labelling of these three foods. We were on our own in Brussels—the only country out of 15 members that was trying to negotiate not to label those foods. The policy was changed, then announced on 7 June 1997.
I agree that it took a while to reach agreement in Europe, but since September last year, it has been a legal requirement to have those foods labelled. I accept that we cannot enforce penalties because, at the moment, we do not have the appropriate British legislation, but we have spent three months consulting on that and an extra month consulting on the catering industry's involvement. That is not a European Union requirement, but we think that catering should be included.
With all that said, and given the fact that sources of non-GM foods are also available, I genuinely believe that the public should have confidence in the foods that are on sale—and that were allowed to be placed on sale by Ministers in the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked about matters that are outside the remit of the food regulatory system. However, I am happy to answer his questions. The regulatory system is split, and rightly so. It would be wrong if one Ministry were making all the decisions. Environmental research and field-scale trials must continue. At the moment, the trials are small, but larger trials will begin this year.
There is a self-imposed three-year moratorium on pesticide-resistant crops. I accept that the industry cannot get the products ready for two years anyway, but the moratorium is nevertheless in place. No commercially grown GM-crops will be planted this year. Planting was always intended to take place at the turn of the year or early next year because of the seasons. There are no approvals for those crops to be grown commercially, and we shall assess the position after we have the latest information on the current trials and on those that are to take place.
There is a moratorium on a free-for-all. There will be no free-for-all in the commercial planting of these crops. Farmers will not be allowed to have access to the seeds and to plant them field after field in farm after farm. They will suffer penalties if they break the rules. They will lose access to the technology, and there will be an independent audit of the crops and seeds when and if they come on the market.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the repression of research. I honestly do not know to which research he is referring. We have not repressed any research. No research findings have been repressed, and I challenge anyone to say what research has been repressed and how
734
we have repressed it. Umpteen research experiments—probably dozens—are being carried out up and down the country in public and private sector institutions, some of which are sponsored by the Government and others by industry. The Government have not repressed any research results, and I challenge anyone to show otherwise.
Mr. Yeo: What about Professor James?
Mr. Rooker: The advice on eating raw potatoes is exactly the same as it is on eating raw chicken—do not do it; cook it first. That is the official scientific advice that was given to the House of Lords Select Committee, which spent six months investigating the issue. It does not matter whether the potatoes are genetically modified or not, that advice remains the same. For the avoidance of doubt, no GM potatoes are being trialed or marketed in this country.
We publish the advice we receive, and we are opening up food policy in a way that was unheard of three or four years ago. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members on labelling. We shall publish the statutory instrument by the end of the consultation period next week. I am not a business manager, but we have no problem about debating that legislation on the Floor of the House to show what we have achieved on labelling since we came to power.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was about the failure to segregate. I accept that that is a difficulty; it causes a problem. When we came to office, companies complained to me about the failure to obtain segregated soya produce from America because it had been mixed up. We considered the legal position, which is that we cannot, either as a country or as a member of the European Union, force segregation under the rules of the World Trade Organisation, because we do not have a medical reason for it.
However, we did not rely on that, because we wanted a consumer-choice reason for segregation. We called in all the leading players in the industry—large and small manufacturers—to ask what the Government could do to assist in getting non-GM supplies. The result of our inquiries was a list of 59 non-GM suppliers. We were told by those companies that we had missed the boat on segregation by about 18 months. They told me that in January 1998, and I plead guilty to missing the boat 18 months before that date.
I do not know—because I have no access to the papers—whether the last Government tried to press or negotiate for the segregation of such crops at the same time as they approved their sale in this country.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are suffering from late-night reading of John Grisham novels? Is he prepared to convince the House that scientists in Norwich who are working in the John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Sainsbury laboratory will be able to conduct their researches into viral resistance using such crops and nutritious foods, which is their aim?
Those scientists have always collaborated with the agencies mentioned by my hon. Friend, and they should be encouraged to do so. Good science will produce the answers to some of the questions—as will the honesty and openness shown by this Government, which contrasts

735
with the Conservative Government's attitude to the problems of BSE. People died because of their incompetence; no one has yet died because of genetically modified food.
Mr. Rooker: We are attempting to operate on the basis of the best science, but we go beyond that. Our doors are still open to receive the views of scientists who might be described as being outside the loop.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Surely the core issue is not whether there is a conflict of interests in the case of one Minister, but whether there has been a complete lack of interest on the part of a succession of Ministers over the past decade or so.
The Minister asked what happened under the Conservative regime when the issue of segregation arose. I think that I can tell him, because I asked his Conservative predecessor, the then food Minister, what the Government were doing about the segregation of genetically modified organisms in soya and other crops. The answer was that the Government had washed their hands of it: they felt that it was not worth bothering about. I put it to the Minister's predecessor that the horse had bolted, and that it would now be incredibly difficult to ensure that there was accurate labelling so that our constituents, the consumers, could make an informed choice, because the Tory Government—whom these folks on the neighbouring Benches still apparently represent—had failed in their public duties to those consumers.
On 3 February 1997, the then Minister told me specifically:
"The UK Government believe that genetic technology has the potential for widespread benefit".—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 515.]
I ask the present Minister to ignore the humbug of Conservative Members—but two wrongs do not make a right. I am sure the Minister will agree that there is widespread concern about the issue; does he also agree that the science of surveillance is not keeping up with the science of development? Does he agree that, in particular, the issue of labelling is becoming incredibly difficult to manage? When I met representatives of the Food Safety Agency in Brussels yesterday, it was clear that they too were dissatisfied with the progress being made. Does the Minister agree that, in view of the widespread concern, it is time for a new statement of Government policy to reassure the public?
Mr. Rooker: I hope that I have been able to go some way down that road this afternoon. With regard to Brussels, it is true that there are gaps in the labelling proposals, but we expect a European Union proposal shortly to deal with additives and flavourings that are not covered by the current regulations, and we expect a de minimis level to be negotiable from March this year. We need to close the gap. I hope that, by the time we have introduced the statutory instrument to cover labelling—which will include the catering industry, in relation to which we are going beyond the EU directive—we shall be able to show that we are taking the matter seriously.
736
As for segregation, as I said the other day, proper, effective labelling with a claim that can be tested in laboratories, and the availability of alternatives, will enable consumers to vote with their feet. Ultimately, market forces will prevail.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Many people will be very concerned about what happened to Dr. Pusztai at the Rowett research institute in Aberdeen. Within days of giving a television interview about his work he was forced to retire, with a gagging clause. Given that it is a Government-funded research institute, will the Minister use our influence to remove that gagging clause, so that Dr. Pusztai can explain exactly what his work proved, or demonstrated in his mind, and his own anxieties? In that way, rather than being perhaps shifted to one side, his work can be thoroughly researched, with 10 times the resources being devoted to finding out if there are any problems with GM foods.
Mr. Rooker: I remember that example being raised last August. The fact is that we cannot check on the result of the research because it has not been published. There has been no peer-group review of the research. I understand that, as I stand here, the audit of Dr. Pusztai's work and the comments on that audit are being made available by the Rowett research institute, which has asked the Royal Society in London and Edinburgh to conduct a review; but no one can do a review until the scientists publish their research, so that other scientists can try to repeat the experiments.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the only danger from genetically modified foods that are on the market at the moment is that they seem to turn some politicians, scientists and journalists into headless chickens? Can he try to continue what he has done from the Dispatch Box: to get some common sense into the issue?
Of course some genetically modified foods were approved under the last Conservative Government. As the former Minister for Science and Technology, I am proud that they were. Of course, we had talks with companies such as Monsanto and Zeneca. It was of interest to the then Government to know what those companies were doing. Of course we encouraged them to talk to the research institutes. We have spent years trying to get industry to open its research to research institutes. It is foolish now to start pointing them out as case studies of the opposite direction.
Will the Minister please make it clear to the public that there is no such thing as safe food, or completely clear scientific evidence? There is always an element of risk. If more politicians, journalists and scientists put what their findings are at any given moment on some sliding scale of risk, so that the public could understand, we would not have ludicrous scare stories such as have appeared in the past few days.
Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who as the former Minister for Science and Technology speaks with some experience. He is right. Some of the stories have been pure scaremongering. A headline yesterday said:
"Safety fears at 70 sites testing GM crops."

737
The reality is that 70 sites were being used to test GM crops, four were found to be a problem, and, with two, there is a prosecution tomorrow. There were thus no safety fears at 70 sites testing GM crops; so information is always useful to put across the case.
We will do our best to harness the best of science. We are leaders in Europe in this sector, but we will not take risks with public safety. The foods that are on sale are as safe as the non-GM equivalents. Everyone who has examined them is satisfied that those foods already on the market are as safe as equivalent foods. There is no equivocation about that, notwithstanding the degrees of risk that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Nothing is safe: even crossing the road is not safe. [Interruption.]
Mr. Alan Simpson: Before any more Opposition Front Benchers slip away in embarrassment, may I urge the Minister not to take any moral lectures from an Opposition party that, when in government, placed the dogma of deregulation before the duty to public health? I thank him for publishing the list of non-GM crops, which he and I have been talking about since he came to office, but will he address some of the concerns that scientists have recently been trying to flag up?
The first concern is that current benchmarks for the conduct of good scientific research are simply inadequate to deal with the wider issues, which are beginning to be raised by hon. Members on both sides the House. Will my hon. Friend consider strengthening the scientific criteria against which laboratory-based research is conducted, and examine the relevant new issues about when wider releases become an unacceptable risk? However, before doing that, will he ensure that the public are able to exercise more widely their right to decide when it is safe to consume products? Currently, with the best will in the world, we do not have adequate answers to those questions on safety.
Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. First, however, as I should have said when initially answering the private notice question, I apologise for the absence today of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—who is in Brussels for important bilateral meetings with representatives of other member states, in preparation for probably the most important Agriculture Council in recent years, to be held next week, on reform of the common agricultural policy.
Scientists will always have queries on benchmarks, as science is always moving and will never stay still. GM products are assessed using the method of substantial equivalence. We adhere to that method, which has not only been approved by the World Health Organisation but is used across the European Union.
The Government are served by more than one advisory committee—one of which is the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. However, to ensure that we have the right regulatory process, at the very first meeting of the new Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology in December, we agreed to a Whitehall review of the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulatory process, to determine whether any of the relevant committees should be merged or abolished, or whether a new regulatory system should be imposed. On 17 December 1998, we published the press release announcing the review.
738
The Government are therefore not simply accepting received policy but are moving on a number of fronts to strengthen policy, in the interests of consumers and of Britain's science base.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that it does not really matter whether those decisions were taken in the 1980s or 1990s, and that the point—whether we are dealing with BSE, human genetic engineering or GM foods—is that consumers will best be served only if we do not leave such matters exclusively, as has increasingly happened, to scientists rather than to politicians and others who have a right, on behalf of their electorate, to participate in the exercise?
Does the Minister not think, therefore, that the suggestion that I made before the previous general election—that there should be an ad hoc Select Committee to examine these issues—remains valid; that it was disgraceful that the Select Committee on Science and Technology sat on that occasion for only one day; that there should now be encouragement for the Select Committee to draw together the various issues—over which there is much confusion, both political and scientific—so that we can get to the bottom of the matter; and that the House, on behalf of consumers and the electorate, should play its part and not simply pass the buck to the scientists?
Mr. Rooker: I can honestly say that I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has just uttered. I do not think that these matters should be left exclusively to scientists—which is why, since 1997, lay people have been appointed to sit on every single scientific committee, of which there are about seven or eight, dealing with foods.
Furthermore, lay people are not on the committees to serve as tokens. We encourage them—and the ethicists on committees—to network with each other. The other day, we counted up the numbers, and there were no fewer than 12 ethics specialists serving on the biotechnology committees serving the Government. A non-scientist lay person has been appointed ' to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and is not there as a token, either. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and realise that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will conduct an inquiry—of which I wholly approve, and in which the Government will fully co-operate.
Audrey Wise: It was good to hear my hon. Friend expose the hypocrisy of Opposition Members. However, will he also accept that there are genuine fears about this type of technology? May I remind him that all the changes in agriculture over the past 20, 30 or more years have been made in the name of progress—all to feed the hungry; all for progress—but have left behind deserts and polluted land and water?
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to openness. I urge him to preserve a healthy scepticism. In some cases, by the time that we discover that something is harmful it is too late and we cannot undo the damage.
Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She has identified one reason why there will be no free-for-all on commercial growing. We have to get

739
the agreement of the industry. We do not yet have final approval. The industry's guidelines will stand much better if they have the Government's support. We shall not give our support until we are satisfied. My noble Friend Lord Donoughue and I have sent the guidelines back to the industry four times in0 the past 12 months because we want them toughened. We are not yet satisfied. We understand that the final version will meet our demands.
My hon. Friend talks about changing agricultural practices. We shall do everything that we can to preserve diversity in agricultural practices. In the next financial year, we shall double the aid available for farmers to convert to organic production. We desperately need more home-produced organic food.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The press has told us this week that there is a possibility of an outbreak of lung cancer as a result of medication delivered before 1961. Is it not important to be careful about going ahead with certain things without verification? Will the gagging order that we understand has been placed on a certain scientist be lifted so that others can weigh up the issues? We must learn from our mistakes and remember that if a Minister giving his children a hamburger failed to assuage the public's fears in the past, the Prime Minister advocating genetically modified food now will not necessarily assuage current fears.
Mr. Rooker: I have heard about the gagging order only in the press. It is not a gagging order from the Government—indeed, I do not know whether it is a gagging order at all. As I have already said, as I rose to speak today the Rowett research institute was publishing an audit of the work together with comments on the audit, and asking the Royal Society in London and Edinburgh to conduct a review and inquiry.
The research in question has not been published. The Government are not stopping publication. We want the research to be published because we can be confident about the results only if the experiments are repeated by other scientists, as is the norm. No one will be more pleased than me when that happens.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall happily eat any genetically modified food that gets through the tough UK regulatory system. Does he agree that it is important to increase public
740
confidence, in view of the hysteria in the press over the past few weeks? Is not the best way to do that to insist on rigorous labelling of foods? Does he find it extraordinary, as I do, that the Conservatives opposed the labelling of food when they were in government, yet they are now responsible for whipping up hysteria?
Mr. Rooker: I have spoken about the history of the issue. When we came to office, this country was following the American policy on GM crops, products and foods. We changed that.
Mr. Alan Clark: The Minister generously said that he had no problem with the issue being debated on the Floor of the House. He may remember that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) initiated a debate on it on Wednesday of the week before last. Presumably she has been sent out of the Chamber for being off-message. When he was answering that debate only two weeks ago, why did he not make the forthright statement that he made this afternoon, particularly the assurances about labelling? Is it not because my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) focused attention on the issue when he questioned the Prime Minister, who clearly knew nothing about it?
Has the Minister seen the Minister for the Cabinet Office giving assurances on television that no member of the Government has any financial interest in this process whatever? Would he think it prudent to advise him not to give such assurances on the Floor of the Chamber, in view of the various family trusts and blind trusts from which Lord Sainsbury benefits and which are closely connected to the supply of genetic food to supermarkets?
Mr. Rooker: The debate to which the right hon. Gentleman refers took place on 3 February. I invite any hon. Member or observer of these proceedings to read columns 862–64 of Hansard—my ten-minute winding-up speech in that debate—and point to any issue that I have not mentioned today. In fact, I was tempted to repeat that speech word for word in answer to the PNQ today, but I thought that would take too long.
I respect profoundly the stand that the right hon. Gentleman has taken on many issues, but what he has said today is totally and utterly wrong. I have said nothing different today from what I said in answer to that debate. I have also had the opportunity to answer some parliamentary questions. I do not accept his attack on Lord Sainsbury; the facts do not bear it out.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Through no fault of yours, we did not get to any question that related to the on-going bombing and humanitarian crisis in Iraq. It was no fault of yours that we did not reach Question 19. However, in view of this country possibly being, in effect, at war, should not there have been a statement as to exactly what the position is? Sooner or later, there will be a crisis of one form or another; possibly, heaven help us, a Tornado either malfunctioning or being shot down over Iraq, with consequences that are too awful to contemplate. Should not there be an opportunity for a report on the situation?
Madam Speaker: I regret very much that we were not able to reach Question 19 today; I had hoped that we could do so. As the hon. Gentleman says, that was the first question relating to Iraq, in which I know that he has an interest. I have not been informed that the Government are seeking to make any statement on the issue. No doubt those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order; he raised a similar one only yesterday. Perhaps they will make note of it, and report it to the appropriate Department.
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still in the Chamber. Could he confirm that Dr. Pusztai sent copies of his documentation—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to extend the PNQ. I know that he was trying to catch my eye; hard luck—try again some time.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to the point of order from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Madam Speaker. May I associate myself with his remarks? As it appears that RAF aircraft have been in action regularly recently, would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State for Defence to do what he did earlier and write to all hon. Members, given there is no time for a statement ahead of the recess to tell them exactly where we stand?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a suggestion for the Secretary of State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to telephone the Secretary of State's office and put that point to him.

Age Limits on Health Care
4.8 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment on the basis of age; and to establish an inquiry into the prevalence of age discrimination in the National Health Service.
I recognise that the Bill deals with a sensitive issue, and I propose it because I have been persuaded by organisations directly concerned with the aged—notably Age Concern, which has given me a great deal of help with the Bill—that there is a serious problem. That concern has been echoed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Chartered Institute of Physiotherapists, which also support the Bill.
The problem originates in the fact that we have an aging population, with a growing number of people over 65 using the NHS; they now account for 40 per cent.—and rising—of its budget. The NHS is, and always has been, constrained in its resources. There is growing fear, and evidence, that resources are being withdrawn from patients on the basis of age alone.
I stress that I present the Bill in a positive spirit. I am not here to point fingers or suggest that clinicians are behaving improperly, and I make no implied criticism of the Government or the previous Government. Indeed, the problem arises for positive reasons: because the NHS has been so successful in extending life, a growing number of people encounter the diseases of old age.
There has also been much advance over recent years in the treatment of the elderly in the NHS. I vividly recall one of my first jobs in the mid-1960s, working in the geriatric ward of a mental hospital. It was an horrific experience to see a large circle of old people, mainly ladies, sitting and looking at each other, inert, immobile and effectively waiting to die.
That contrasts with what happens today in the geriatric mental ward in St. John's in Twickenham and, I am sure, in many other places, where there are much better staff ratios and a much more professional and positive approach; it is a different universe. None the less, there is a serious problem, because there is a large gulf between the official policy on age in the NHS and what happens in practice.
The official position, as declared in the ethical statement of the General Medical Council, is that there should be no discrimination on age or any other grounds. That has been repeatedly echoed in the House. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when asked about the problem in 1994, said that it was undoubtedly the policy that the NHS should in no way discriminate on grounds of age. I am sure that the present Prime Minister would say the same.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that a great deal of such discrimination occurs in practice. NHS trusts run cardiac rehabilitation programmes, helping people who have had heart attacks—the same applies to strokes—to become mobile and independent again. I use this example because there is not much research on age discrimination in the NHS, but three recent studies on those programmes have shown clearly that, in 40 per cent. of them, an age bar is explicitly applied. People over 65 or 70—in some cases, 60—are specifically precluded from benefiting because they are too old, and for no other reason.

743
That is not only discriminatory, it is perverse in medical terms. If those people are helped to become more mobile and independent, they are less of a burden on social services when they leave hospital and costs are reduced. We are not talking about high-tech medicine: the programmes are relatively cheap.
Another example of discrimination is more emotive: screening for breast cancer. A great deal of attention has been given to the matter in an attempt to make the screening more comprehensive, but it is still the case that women over 65 are not invited to be screened, despite the evidence that two thirds of the women who die from breast cancer are over 65, and all the medical evidence shows that they benefit just as much as younger women from early detection and treatment. The implicit assumption is that their lives are less worth while.
Another example is more widely recognised. For many years, it was extremely difficult for elderly people to get access to kidney dialysis treatment, although again the medical evidence is that they can benefit from it as much as younger people. The problem has become a little easier, but the most recent evidence that I have seen suggests that only about one in eight of the people recommended for kidney dialysis is able to get access to the treatment.
Alzheimer's disease is a growing problem. At present, about 700,000 people have it, and the total will be well over 1 million in a decade. A chilling statistic is that one in five of people who live through their 70s will contract Alzheimer's disease. The death last week of Iris Murdoch will have reminded people of what the disease does to even the finest brain: sufferers lose their faculties, memory and dignity.
Yet Alzheimer's disease can be stopped. Drugs have been developed that can cure at least half of all cases, but they are being made available in only a relatively limited number of NHS trusts. The reason is primarily one of cost, although that again is a false economy: the £1,000 that a course of the relevant drugs costs is small compared with what people who are allowed to degenerate because of the disease cost their carers in the community.
To round off this list of anecdotes—to which I am sure that all hon. Members could add from their own experience—I shall offer an example that may be more trivial but that illustrates the mentality underlying the problem. Not long after taking office, the Government introduced a consultation paper called "Our Healthier Nation". It was quite enlightened, and was concerned with promoting fitness as a way to prevent ill health. However, it contained no reference to fitness targets for people over
744
65, and I asked a series of questions to find out why. The answers from Ministers revealed a complete lack of comprehension about why people over 65 might want to keep fit. It was assumed that such people were sedentary and that fitness was of no interest to them.
There are two elements to the underlying problem. The first has to do with economics—and rather bad economics at that. Health service trusts and clinicians, being strapped for cash, assume that one way to save cash is to withdraw treatment—especially expensive treatment—from elderly patients. In many cases, that is a false economy, as the costs then fall on carers and local social services departments.
However, the second element of the problem goes beyond economics and might be called a question of ideology, although it does not involve the ideology of left and right. It is the belief that most people share—I do not think that we are especially enlightened in this respect—that we are all entitled to a lifespan of three score years and ten. The belief probably derives from religion.
When my father died, 10 years ago, he had been prematurely evicted from hospital, and I am sure that that is why he died. It caused him to lose several years of doing what he loved most, which happened to be helping the Conservative party. I was angry about my father's premature death, but he was philosophical, saying that he had lived for 70 years and saw no reason to create a fuss. However, I think that he was wrong. Nothing binds us to Old Testament arithmetic: people now can—and should—live much longer. The question is whether they should live longer as fit and well people.
I have introduced the Bill to preclude discrimination in the NHS on grounds of age, to stimulate debate and to promote research on the subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Paul Burstow, Dr. Peter Brand, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Age Limits on Health Care
  AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE
  Dr. Vincent Cable accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment on the basis of age; and to establish an inquiry into the prevalence of age discrimination in the National Health Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 48].
Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 February].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  House of Lords Bill
    Clause 1

      EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS
      Amendment proposed [15 February]: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, at the end to add the words
      'except that—

      (a) 75 hereditary peers shall be elected as members of the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (2).

      (b) 14 hereditary peers shall be elected as members of the House of Lords in accordance with subsection (3).

      (c) the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal shall be members of the House of Lords.

      (2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of a hereditary peerage.
      (3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (I)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords.
      (4) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision about the conduct of the elections under this section as he considers appropriate.
      (5) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mrs. Laing.]
      4.21 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the Committee that, with this, we are discussing the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 6, at end add
      ', unless he or she is the first holder of a hereditary peerage.'.
      No. 25, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
      'and any transitional arrangement enabling certain hereditary peers to continue their membership of that House shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of twelve months from the date of publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament announced in Command Paper No. 4183'.
      No. 16, in clause 4, page 1, line 14, leave out from 'force' to end of line and insert
      'on a date not less than six months after the passing of this Act nominated by the Secretary of State'.
      No. 17, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'Session' and insert 'date'.
      No. 18, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2A) Prior to nominating a date for the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall make inquiry and lay a report before both Houses of Parliament, setting out the names of all current hereditary peers who have played a significant role in the workings of the House of Lords during the ten years preceding the passing of this Act; and such hereditary peers shall be entitled to remain members of the House of Lords, pending the enactment of proposals for the wider reform of the House of Lords following the report of the Royal Commission and public consultation concerning its proposals.'.
      746
      New clause 12—PEERAGE OF SCOTLAND—
      '( ) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to prevent sixteen peers from the peerage of Scotland from voting in the House of Lords.'.
      No. 10, in title, line 1, leave out 'End' and insert 'Restrict'.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: It would be folly to repeat the arguments made so eloquently, forcefully and passionately yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), but I wish to reflect on some of the points that arose from her speech. She claimed no originality for amendment No. 2. Indeed, Labour Members suggested that it was in fact the Weatherill amendment.
      Whatever its genesis may have been, the amendment has become the Alastair Campbell amendment, for it is quite clearly the amendment that the Government suggest, in chapter 5 of the White Paper, that they would be minded to accept. It is extraordinary that an amendment should be owned, in a sense, by a member of the Executive who has no place in either part of the legislature, but that is a measure of the pass to which we have come, and for which the Bill should be something of a remedy.
      There appears to be a contradiction in the motives behind the amendment, for which, incidentally, I have no great enthusiasm. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the amendment will make a bad Bill marginally better. However, I believe that the Government intend the Bill to last for a long time, and I am keen to see the amendment carried only so that the settlement that arises from the Bill may be marginally better than it would otherwise be.
      Last night, the Committee heard several Labour Members complaining that the opposite was the case, and that the arrangements that we are debating are for a transitional period. To me, the important transitional arrangement will be that made between this afternoon, when Labour Members vote against the amendment, and the day on which the same Members will vote for it when returns as a Lords amendment. They may comfort themselves with the thought that these are just transitional arrangements.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that transition, but he could go further. Given that the amendment is in fact the Alastair Campbell amendment, is it not interesting that the Government Whips will force Labour Members—most of them, at any rate—to vote against the amendment today but for it when it returns? That shows both the extent to which Parliament is being bypassed and to which Labour Members are simply Lobby fodder.
      Mr. Swayne: That is true. Labour Members, who hope merely for a transitional stage, are trusting a great deal to the Executive. In effect, they are writing a blank cheque. I have no doubt that the arrangements that are being put in place are made to last rather than to be transitory.
      The Government have said that there is urgency about proceedings on the Bill. Surely, if there were any urgency, the royal commission would have been set up 20 months ago and we would now be discussing its findings and putting in place the stage 2 reforms. The very fact that that is not the case leads me to suspect that the arrangements are built to last. Curiously, I support the

      747
      amendment for that reason—so that the arrangements that are put in place, which I fear will last, are better than they would otherwise have been had the Bill been unamended.
      Labour Members will finally vote for the amendment, when it comes back from the other place, for precisely the opposite motive. They will be voting for it in the hope that the arrangements will be transitory. It is curious that both sides of the House will at some stage end up voting for the provisions of the amendment for different motives.
      I hope that Labour Members will be proved correct and that the arrangements will be transitory. In many ways, I have little enthusiasm for the amendment, although it bears my name among others. It would improve the situation, but the state of affairs is far from satisfactory. What is least satisfactory about it is that Back-Bench Conservative Members have tabled the amendment; it should have been the Government. In a sense, we have provided a service to the House by allowing it the benefit of line-by-line scrutiny of the amendment in Committee. Otherwise, the Bill would have ended up in much the same state as it is in now. I regard that as regrettable indeed.
      Mr. Peter Mandelson: As debate on the amendment has continued, it has become increasingly clear that the Opposition are trying to flog a very dead horse and are doing so at inordinate length. That serves as a good example and a good taste of what the Government would have faced in the House of Lords had they not done precisely what they are doing, which is to create an arrangement whereby they can fulfil two objectives.
      Those objectives are simple and straightforward: the first is to secure the passage of the Bill as expeditiously as we can; the second is to do so in such a way as to protect the rest of the Government's programme. The Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, carry that dual responsibility. In the debate yesterday, the attacks of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) on my right hon. Friend, tearing into her and accusing her of astonishing and intolerable hypocrisy, smacked of enormous humbug. She is doing precisely what he would have done had he been in her position, given that he would bear exactly the same responsibility, which is to ensure the passage of this Bill as well as to protect the rest of the Government's programme. The facts of political life are that, if we are not careful, we may achieve only objective 1 at the expense of objective 2, unless we can obtain the good will of the other place.
      4.30 pm
      The reason why we have to go to some length to secure the good will of the other place in the passage of the legislation goes to the heart of one of the reasons why the Bill has been introduced in the first place, which is that, as we all know, the Conservative party has an in-built 3:1 majority against us in the other place. No matter what we do, no matter what we introduce and no matter how valid and well-drafted the legislation, if the Conservative party wants to, it can wheel out its battalions and stop the Labour Government carrying out their will, fulfilling their
      748
      mandate and implementing their manifesto. It is to meet that potential obstruction that we have to take the measures that we are taking.
      Dr. Liam Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of peers in the other place take the Conservative Whip? How many, as a proportion of the other House as a whole, do so?
      Mr. Mandelson: We hear constant rehearsal of that facetious and ridiculous point. If the Conservative Front Benchers are the only people in this country who do not understand and recognise that, one after another and time after time, so-called independent peers hear the arguments independently, weigh up those arguments independently, arrive at their views and their judgments independently and then vote Conservative independently, they must be the only people who are in such a state of self-delusion.
      Dr. Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mandelson: No—the hon. Gentleman made his point, but failed to do so satisfactorily.
      It is precisely for that reason that Lord Cranborne and Lord Strathclyde decided that to give hereditary peers and their allies such an opportunity to frustrate the democratic will and the Government's mandate and manifesto would be an unacceptable use of unaccountable power by those Members of the other place. They recognised that the Government had a mandate and so, in a spirit of compromise on their part, they secured a small, temporary return as the price for our and their good will. That is a perfectly straightforward matter.
      That is why I have no compunction and no hesitation about saying that I, along with the bulk of my right hon. and hon. Friends, will both vote against the amendment as it is proposed today and vote in favour of it on a future occasion, if it is offered to us to do so. That amendment in the other place will have been agreed as the price of the good will and the spirit of compromise that joins both Labour Members and those Conservatives who are democrats, who want it to be clearly demonstrated to the public that, when the Government have a mandate to implement a commitment in the manifesto on which they have been elected, they will be given the means and the power to do so.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I have not heard such unadulterated humbug for a long time. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman secure that good will by voting for the amendment tonight? Surely those in the other place who want the amendment to be made will be happy if we do it for them.
      Mr. Mandelson: Let me put it bluntly: the price of accepting the amendment will be the peers' good will and their commitment to ensuring the passage of the Bill through the other place without it being strung out, impeded, frustrated and filibustered in the way that some Conservative Members, as their behaviour demonstrates, appear determined to do in this place. We are simply not going to give them the opportunity to do that, and we deny them that opportunity in agreement with, and with the good will and commitment of, many members of the other place who take the Conservative Whip and who do

      749
      not want to be seen to behave in as undemocratic a manner as some Conservative Members of this place appear determined to behave.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman define, for the benefit of the Committee, consistency and blackmail?
      Mr. Mandelson: If I thought it remotely relevant to my argument, I would do so. I recall the right hon. Member for South Norfolk yesterday accusing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of bully-girl tactics. Save for the change of gender, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would have to take exactly the same precaution as that taken by my right hon. Friend if he were faced, in the other place, with that built-in 3:1 majority against his party and its manifesto, which some Opposition Members would clearly like the Lords to deploy if they have the opportunity.
      Mr. James Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mandelson: No, I see no point in stringing out this argument any longer.
      Of course we want to secure the Bill's passage and protect the rest of our legislation, which contains important measures concerning the fight against crime, the improvement of the health service, raising educational standards and industrial policies. Those myriad measures are absolutely essential for improving and transforming our society and economy. It is the duty of Labour Members to ensure that all those measures pass through both Houses of Parliament. It is precisely in order to do so that we are prepared to take the amendment at face value if it is moved and made in the other place and to agree to it in this House as the temporary and small price of securing good will for the passage of the rest of our legislation.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we were to make the amendment today, their lordships might find other ways of trying to rescue another 91 of their Members, as well as employing all the procedural devices that he has outlined?
      Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend touches on an important point, which makes it all the more important for us, in rejecting the amendment today, to give those in the other place, if they wish to make the amendment, the added incentive to allow us to protect the rest of our programme. I am sure that, as democrats, they will be happy to do so.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his colleagues are creating a significant precedent in sacrificing the democratic rights of this House to discuss a measure that is an important part of a Bill in order effectively to blackmail the other House?
      Mr. Mandelson: I do not know how we are jeopardising anyone's democratic rights, given that the amendment has been moved and we have been discussing it at inordinate and ridiculous length. We shall then exercise our democratic right—at least on this side of the
      750
      Committee—to vote against it. We shall then give Members of the other place the chance to exercise their democratic right to consider the amendment if they wish to table it and vote for or against it. If they vote for it, we shall then be able to exercise our further democratic right to vote for or against it when it returns to this place. That is called democracy: exercising one's right to vote. We are doing that in a way that will ensure the Bill's safe passage as well as the protection of our programme, which consists of important measures that, at the last general election, we were elected to implement.
      Mr. Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, which was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) with an excellent, powerful, well argued speech.
      I listened with interest to the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson); I appreciate the fact that he wanted to express to the Committee his views on this matter. I am slightly disappointed, however, that he did not say anything newer and more interesting than the authorised version that he presented to us. With his knowledge of such matters, it would have been interesting—I would have said this in an intervention if the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to give way—to hear how long he considers that the transitional phase will last, and what he would like to happen at the end of it.
      It was interesting to compare the speech by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool with the almost identical speech by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). I must say to both right hon. Gentlemen—especially the former—that I disagree with their view of the role of the Committee of this House in all these matters. Why on earth cannot we debate this amendment now? [HoN. MEMBERS: "We are."] That is only because the amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. If the Government had had their way, we would have had no opportunity to debate the matter.
      Mr. Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clappison: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, although he did not do me the courtesy of giving way.
      Mr. Mandelson: What does the hon. Gentleman think we are doing if we are not debating this now? Moreover, if this debate is so fundamental to the passage of the legislation, will he please explain why it has not been initiated by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen?
      Mr. Clappison: In her opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest clarified the position on that. She moved the amendment, and both the right hon. Member for Hartlepool and the Liberal Democrats have tried, in effect, to bypass the Committee and say that it was very wrong of us to debate the matter now.
      The President of the Council has been very coy, talking about
      "a proposal that may be put in another place".—[Official Report, 15 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 685.]

      751
      It is hardly a state secret that something like that will happen. It is hardly hanging in the balance, with everything to play for. The Government's White Paper states that such an amendment may well be tabled in the other place. There has been speculation on the subject in all the newspapers and throughout the media. That being the case, why cannot we have a debate now, in the Committee of this House, before the matter is debated in another place? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool accuses us of filibustering when hardly a word has been said.
      The Government have adopted a curious position on this subject. In yesterday's debate, we were repeatedly met by what I regard as counsels of perfection from Labour Members, with continual attacks on the hereditary principle, the number of Conservative peers and of Conservative hereditary peers. We have covered the background to this issue; we have discussed custard pie manufacturers, turkey breeders and people who did favours for Charles II.
      I understand the arguments that Labour Members are making, but I believe that the problem in the amendment—for them and for the Government—lies in the way in which the Government are approaching the matter. On Second Reading, the President of the Council launched an all-out assault on the hereditary principle. She did so with some relish—I understand that she may have personal views on the matter—but it must be strange for members of the Government to understand that, after all that, we have reached a position where the Government may be minded to accept an amendment in future that will allow for a significant number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords: up to 91 of them.
      On Second Reading, the President of the Council appeared to set things out as a matter of principle, when she said:
      "if one went to the airport and was told that the pilot did not himself have a pilot's licence, but that there was no need to worry because his grandfather had a licence, one simply would not get on the plane."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 611.]
      What the right hon. Lady and the Government are now saying is that if one goes to the airport, one will meet someone who will say, "I cannot fly the plane, but the grandfather of that chap over there is a pilot, so he can come in and fly the plane." That is the point. Let us face it, every single one of those 91 peers is—
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, in politics, one puts forward one's preferred option but may give notice that, in future, one might accept a second-best option? Is that not what Conservative Members are doing by moving this amendment, which they themselves say that they think is second best to maintaining the status quo? Is not that exactly what the Government and the Liberal Democrats are doing by signalling that this might be an acceptable amendment in future?
      Mr. Clappison: The problem that Liberal Democrats and Ministers must face is that, in all this, the Government have argued, "This is the first-best solution." The hon. Gentleman will have to answer the question, for how long will the proposed arrangement continue?
      752
      My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest did the House a service by bringing before the House the subject of the election in the House of Lords. How strange that election—an election of hereditary peers—will be!
      4.45 pm
      It is the only election that will occur because the other peers will be appointed. At the end of the day, we face the prospect that a substantial number of hereditary peers will remain in the House of Lords. Labour Members must face that fact. It may be, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, that those peers will receive the Prime Minister's blessing. However, they will not be genetically modified: they will remain hereditary peers.
      In her speech on Second Reading, the President of the Council referred to the Earl of Dunmore, who travelled from Australia to take his seat in the House of Lords. The Government are saying to the Earl of Dunmore and to all other foreign residents of his ilk, "Sorry, chaps, you cannot come and sit and vote in the House of Lords any longer. But we will let you come along and choose other hereditary peers who can sit and vote in the House of Lords". I am looking forward to seeing how the procedure will work—particularly how the 62 hereditary peers resident overseas will choose other hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. That will be very interesting.
      Perhaps there will be some sort of "Blind Date in Ermine". There might be a "Lonely Peers" column in the House of Lords, which could read, "Foreign peer with villa in Tuscany seeks British peer with shooting in Scotland". That is what we could be reduced to. That is the sort of selection process that we face, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has done the Committee a service by highlighting it. Who is to say how long this state of affairs will continue? It may be that the earls, viscounts, marquesses and dukes will sit in the House of Lords for a considerable time.
      I read with interest the Government's account of the history of this matter this century. There have been three attempts to solve the problem of the House of Lords. In 1917—the first of three occasions when reform was debated—the Bryce committee produced far more detailed proposals that went much further than the present proposal. The Government say bluntly in their White Paper that, after the proposals were formulated:
      "No time was found during the 1920s to put them before Parliament."
      Hon. Members must ask how long this proposed arrangement will last. As long as it does, I venture to suggest that we will have a tame and unsatisfactory second Chamber—it will certainly not be capable of robust scrutiny of the Government. The second Chamber will comprise a substantial number of additional Government appointees, hereditary peers and what are described as "independent" peers. We know that they will be independent because they will be appointed by the Appointments Commission—a Government body—which will tell us that they are independent peers.
      We will have a tame second Chamber when we need a robust one, but I am sure that that is an entirely unintended consequence of reform. We know how much this Government—more than any other—welcome robust scrutiny of their activities. This Government look forward to challenging and vigorous debate and scrutiny,

      753
      so a tame second Chamber is an entirely unforeseen consequence. I suppose that it is also wholly unintended that the Government's proposals include a formula that will provide for a vast increase in Prime Ministerial patronage. The Prime Minister has already created 105 life peers and he will also appoint the Appointments Commission. Under the reform, the formula for appointing peers will allow the Prime Minister to create enough peers to achieve parity with Conservative party peers. That means creating enough additional peers not only to overcome the small deficiency—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is straying into the next group of amendments. I would be grateful if he would return to the amendments currently before the Committee.
      Mr. Clappison: I shall certainly follow your strictures, Mr. Lord. The Government must face the fact that they will exercise patronage by creating Labour peers to compensate for the 91 hereditary peers who will also be appointed to the second Chamber.
      In conclusion, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has done the Committee a great service: this reform is not rooted in principle, it is not built to last, and it does not do what it purports to do. It may therefore meet every requirement of a new Labour reform, but it is not good for our constitution as it would produce a thoroughly unsatisfactory second Chamber. My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in her amendment.
      Dr. George Turner: A fellow Norfolk Member, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), seemed puzzled that Labour Back Benchers might be happy to vote against the amendment today, but might be willing further to consider the position later.
      In the many years before I came to the House, I learned not to trust the Conservative party. My goodness, I and other Back Benchers have found good reason not to trust the Conservative supporters in the House of Lords since we have been here. I shall be happy if the Bill comes back from the Lords essentially in its present form, and we bring about the abolition of the hereditary principle in the second Chamber. I am sure many other Back Benchers share that view.
      If there is still mischief in the Lords, it is important that, through the Parliament Act, we can ensure that the Bill is enforced and we achieve our objective. That is why I shall be happy to vote against the amendments, and why I would be happiest if the Bill remained in its present form. For decades the hereditary principle in the House of Lords has been recognised as unsupportable, so we need waste little time discussing its abolition.
      I listened with care to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who have been here much longer than I, especially the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who pointed out the future dangers if we vote against the amendment now, but are in principle willing to accept it.
      The Committee deserves to know why we would be willing to support a Government compromise. The answer is, bluntly, not for the sake of compromise, or because that is what we want, but because we ask ourselves what
      754
      the alternative is. Most of us came here to deliver the manifesto on which we were elected. Having seen the extent to which, in the first 18 months, the other place succeeded in thwarting the Government's intent and in delaying Government Bills, I wonder what would have happened in the Government's last 18 months if we had gone on in the same way. Undoubtedly, the closer to the election of 1997, the greater the Government's mandate and the stronger the authority for this place to impose its will on the other place.
      I am confident that if we had not addressed the issue now and with firmness, the Conservative party, through its unelected, unrepresentative majority in the House of Lords, would have thwarted the Government's intent to deliver on their manifesto. If we had not taken a firm stance in this Session, there would have been further shenanigans, delays and filibustering in the other place.
      I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if they have to compromise in another place, we shall support them from the Back Benches because we want the Government to make progress on the more important matters—education, health, the reform of local government and so on. Those are the matters that affect my constituents and on which progress will be thwarted if we do not act firmly on an issue that figures little in my constituency mailbag, because my constituents do not have to deal with the problems that we encounter day in, day out in the House.
      On behalf of my constituents, therefore, I shall vote against the amendment. I hope that the Bill will return without a similar amendment, but if that will allow us to get on with the more important business, I shall understand if my colleagues on the Front Bench are willing to compromise. Let us make sure that we get a good deal, and that those in the other place display an attitude of collaboration and co-operation in the best interests of the British people, not in the best interests of the British Conservative party.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I should like to offer Conservative Front Benchers an opportunity to clear up one or two things. In common with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke with a lot of passion, but I cannot share his assumption that her speech had a certain charm and that the merits of her arguments had a certain compulsion. Those qualities certainly were not present, and sadly lacking was an explanation of why the amendment had been tabled by Conservative Back Benchers, not Front Benchers.
      I should willingly give way to a Conservative Front Bencher who would explain to me, to the Committee and to the country whether those on that Front Bench will support the amendment. If they are to support it, why was Cranborne sacked? Surely this is all about trying to put together a political arrangement, using tactics, to make a measure work.
      Dr. Fox: I will happily put the Committee out of its misery, faced with this particularly puerile line of questioning. Conservative Front Benchers will support the amendment, and Lord Cranborne was not sacked because of anything to do with the substance of the agreement, but for trying to negotiate away the Opposition's ability to oppose the Government in the other place.
      Mr. Hancock: That is an interesting spin to put on it; as a turn of phrase on a set of circumstances, the right

      755
      hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) would have been hard pressed to better that one. How right the right hon. Gentleman was to spell out the issues, and I share entirely many of his sentiments about the way in which this matter has been handled. Conservative Members seem to have a fixation that we have not had a chance to debate it, but that is absolute nonsense. About a dozen hon. Members have already participated in the debate on the amendment.
      Conservative Members have talked about the lack of democracy and the lack of consultation, and what they would have done. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool was right to draw the comparison between what is being done now and what would have happened in the past, but he missed the subtle difference. I remember what happened in the past, when another major constitutional change—the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties—was made. That change was not only put through the House in similar fashion to this measure, but there was a guillotine—not only in the Chamber, but in Committee, night after night. The results of consultation were not listened to.
      Yesterday I heard gasps of, "Humbug, humbug, humbug", about what was going on, but Conservative Members have short memories about what they were up to in their previous existence in government. They certainly never listened too hard to the various consultation exercises that took place about the three reorganisations of local government that I have experienced in a 30-year career in local government. They never listened once to the people of Hampshire, or to the people of London, when they campaigned on the reorganisation of local government. Why on earth should they be listened to now?
      It is heartening for hon. Members such as myself, who won Conservative seats, to see how many Conservative Members are going to the wire to defend the hereditary system in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is sad, particularly for his constituents, that he has given up his role in opposition and become part of the Government coalition? Is it not about time that he started opposing the Government, not backing them at every turn?
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am grateful for the lead, because I am with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I hope that we reject the amendment—not only tonight, but when it comes back to the House, because I am in favour of the big bang philosophy. I want the serious constitutional imagination suggested by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) to be adopted, and, as a starting point, I want that to start and finish with a democratically elected second Chamber. I do not want compromise, I do not want fudge; I want the system to be changed, which is why I will vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the only reason that we are even discussing phase 2 of the reform is that the Government
      756
      have been put under pressure not to introduce a simple Bill to remove the hereditary peers and nothing else to reform the upper House?
      Mr. Hancock: No, not at all; that is not the reason. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of what has been going on for the past 18 months. We are using a political tactic to get a Bill through the House without sacrificing a whole raft of legislation, and much needed changes to legislation, which the nation needs.
      Conservative Member after Conservative Member said yesterday that the measure is not a high priority for the people of this country. How right they are. However, it is a high priority of the House to establish a democratically elected second Chamber.
      5 pm
      The Government have had to balance the necessity to get much needed legislation through Parliament to achieve improvements in education, health, social services and in many other areas with the need to avoid it being wrecked by an unelected, undemocratic other Chamber. The Conservative Opposition could not have failed to grasp that point. To do that, the Government have had to come up with a political compromise. I do not like it, and I am sure that few people in the Committee do.
      It is interesting that a succession of Conservative Members have tried to support the hereditary system. The gay cavalier from Aldershot acknowledged the fact that he was right behind them; I can imagine him leading the charge to bring back hereditary peers. Sadly, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is not present to continue his campaign.
      Some Conservative Members, however, said that they did not like the current system, but that they wanted to get a few more hereditary peers kept on the books. I was somewhat confused about the spin they put on it. They wanted us to remember those people who do good work, all of whom we have met at some time or another. We meet them in parliamentary Committees and at outside organisations, and we know of the work they do. No one is under-selling the case that much good work is done by many good people who will no longer be Members of Parliament. The same could apply to this place. Yesterday, we argued against the idea of people being allowed to speak but not to vote. Hon. Members immediately reacted against the suggestion that that should apply in this place. It was nonsense, and it exposed the nonsense of trying to do the same in the other place.
      The price of change is that some people will lose out. Any democratic process will encounter that problem, and people will be disappointed by the results at the ballot box. We have waited for the Government of this country to be decided universally by the ballot box for both Chambers.
      I assume that if the people whom I represent were asked, they would not place this measure high on their list of priorities, but most of them would place it on a list of things that need to be done. The Conservative Opposition are fixated on the length of time that this process of reform will last. It was suggested that it could take several Parliaments or even decades. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) asked what was meant by "decades"? If taken to its ultimate conclusion, it could mean another millennium.

      757
      I do not know what evidence there is for hon. Members to hold that view. It is a terror tactic. That has been a familiar trait of the Conservative party in local government, and Lady Thatcher exposed the nation to such tactics when she gave the worst case scenario. She could then, with a defter and softer touch, say, "What a good job we've done. We told you that it could be that bad, but we have delivered this." It is a simple tactic used by the Conservatives to stir up the fear that the proposed reformed second Chamber will remain for generations to come. I do not believe that to be case. It is not in the Government's interest to allow us to wallow in that pitiful situation.
      I want us to make progress and to reject this amendment and the others. What we really want is imaginative constitutional reform delivered to the people of this country with a deftness of touch, in the shortest possible time. If we do that, we will all be thanked by not only the present generation, but future generations.
      Mr. Martin Linton: I object to the survival of any hereditary peers, even in this transitional second Chamber. It is not personal: I am not against any of the present incumbents. It is a pure point of principle. Many Conservative Members seem to have trouble coming to terms with that. I have counted the number of hon. Members who say that they are in favour of the hereditary principle and those who say they are against it. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that she was against it, but it is clear that the amendment hides a deep division among Opposition Members.
      I would accept the amendment only in exchange for a clear and tangible benefit. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not seem to understand why the White Paper had said that the Government might accept it in the House of Lords, but not in the House of Commons. The White Paper spells that out very clearly: moving the amendment in the House of Lords would enable the first stage of the legislation to be agreed
      "without any threat of deliberate frustration of the programme of a government".
      It is not that any Labour Member wants hereditary peerages as such to continue, but the Opposition are in no position to negotiate. They have no power or strength with which to negotiate. They have nothing to offer; they are not in the poker game. They therefore look rather wistfully to their party colleagues in the other place, who are in a stronger position. The Government have a majority in the House of Commons, but no majority in the House of Lords. Between them, the Conservative peers and the Cross Benchers have 80 per cent. of the votes, while the Labour party has 3 per cent. That is a fairly crushing majority. In the circumstances, it is understandable that the Government in the House of Lords will pay a good deal of attention to what Cross Benchers propose, and to the conditions on which they make their offer.
      I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I want to make a point that I have made before. I cannot question the credentials of the 75 Members of the House of Lords who may be elected by the hereditary peers, because we do not yet know who they are, and the same applies to the other 14. The only two who are mentioned specifically in the amendment are the Lord Great Chamberlain—I must confess that I do not know who he is; I should be glad to be informed, but I think that it is a post rather an
      758
      hereditary title—and the Earl Marshal. His, I know, is an hereditary post. If the amendment were passed, it would be the only hereditary post left in Parliament: the other postholders would be elected by hereditary peers, or by the entire House of Lords. The Earl Marshal's post belongs, by heredity, to the family of the Dukes of Norfolk.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: How does my hon. Friend know that they are legitimate, anyway?
      Mr. Linton: I shall come to that.
      There are many things for which people have been rewarded with a seat in the House of Lords. I have mentioned one or two of them before. There have been the founders of political parties, the custard powder manufacturers, the family who paid off George IV's gambling debts, the family who married William IV's illegitimate daughters, the Bovril tycoon whose great-grandson still sits in the House of Lords, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned—the four descendants of the love children of Charles II.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will not continue with his list for much longer. He is making the House of Lords sound much more interesting than the House of Commons.
      Mr. Linton: Indeed, it covers a multitude of sins, but I have no intention of going through the entire list of peers, lest—as my hon. Friend suggests—I make the House of Lords sound like something worth retaining.
      Mr. Stunell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee exactly how many of those hereditary peers are women?
      Mr. Linton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that the figure is 18. Those 18 have been able to take their seats in the House of Lords only since the Life Peerages Act 1958, or perhaps it was the Peerage Act 1963. Only a few years ago, there was a move to allow the eldest daughter of peers to succeed to titles, which would have transformed the position and brought much greater female representation into the Lords, but it was defeated by their lordships.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: Just for the record, I should like to say that my hon. Friend has vastly inflated the number of women hereditary peers. The number is not 18; it is 16.
      Mr. Linton: I beg their lordships' pardon. I underestimated just how out of date and out of this century they are. However, I want to discuss the credentials of the one hereditary peer who, under the amendment, would remain in the House of Lords, as of right, by heredity: the Duke of Norfolk. As all those other people were rewarded for giving money to political parties or to kings, or for marrying their love children, it seems particularly inappropriate that one should pick out of the entire peerage the Duke of Norfolk as his ancestors were rewarded and put in the House of Lords for regicide.

      759
      That is to say, the original John Howard was the constable of the tower of London in 1483 when two of his most eminent prisoners—
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman should not try to give the Committee a totally bogus history lesson. The Dukes of Norfolk were around as peers of the realm a long time before 1483. Indeed, the probable reason why they hold hereditary office is that they have been around almost as long the current monarchy itself. The hon. Gentleman should not make bogus points.
      Mr. Linton: Far from it.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I find the history lesson very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the amendments that are before us.
      Mr. Linton: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I refer to the Duke of Norfolk only because he is specifically mentioned in the amendment as someone who should he picked for an hereditary post. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is wrong, because not only was that person Richard III's right-hand man in the literal sense—he sat at his right hand at his coronation—but, three days later, he was made the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl Marshal.
      A few years ago, I happened to read a small article in a local newspaper in Horsham; the single-paragraph story caught my eye. The Duke of Norfolk, or rather the heir to the Duke of Norfolk, had met a group of sixth formers to discuss the House of Lords. The paper reported that he had told them that his family ascribed their membership of the House of Lords to the fact that their ancestor had killed the princes in the Bloody tower. It may be that the Horsham weekly paper misreported him, or that he was not aware of the fact that there was a reporter in the audience, but many historians will confirm that version of events. In most historians' view, it is more than likely that that is the origin of the Norfolk title.
      No Labour Member wishes the hereditary principle to survive in that form for its own sake. We will support it only if the great majority that the Conservatives and Cross Benchers have in the House of Lords forces us into a position whereby the arrangement is the only way in which to ensure the smooth passage of the legislation.
      Dr. Fox: I realise that many hon. Members are waiting to speak, so I will be as brief as possible.
      I welcome the chance to discuss the amendment, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) on introducing it in such a remarkably spirited fashion. We are being treated to the most perverse part of the entire debate. The Government claim democratic legitimacy for introducing the Bill because the measure was in their manifesto; I do not think that any democratically elected Member would dispute any Government's right to introduce a measure that was in their manifesto. But, at the same time, they say that they will accept in another place something that is the opposite of the policy in their manifesto—they will keep a number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Only a Government with the moral double-speak of the current
      760
      one could possibly contemplate maintaining such a position without blushing, yet the Leader of the House is quite cavalier about doing so.
      5.15 pm
      Another nonsense is that, had my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest not tabled and moved amendment No. 2, the Government intended that the issue should be debated only in the other place. As I told the Leader of the House yesterday, the Government planned that there should be no debate on the issue in the Chamber that the Government claim has democratic legitimacy, but it would be debated and decided in the Chamber that they claim has no democratic legitimacy.
      Although the Government's position is deeply perverse, a much worse fact is that the House is being treated with contempt. Today, Labour Members will be asked to vote against amendment No. 2. However, when the Bill returns to the House from the other place, Labour Members will be asked to vote for the same provision. If Members in another place are good boys and girls, they will be blessed by his holiness the Prime Minister and their wishes will be granted, at least in the short term. For the Prime Minister, there seems to be only a fine line between divine and divine right.
      We have had long Parliaments and short ones, but now we have a eunuch Parliament, in which votes mean nothing in themselves. There will no intrinsic merit in the votes cast by Labour Back Benchers—who are here only for the convenience of the Executive, casting their votes as the Executive wants. If Labour Members have to do intellectual and moral somersaults to reconcile conflicts, they will be expected to do so.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Not so.
      Dr. Fox: It is up to all Labour Members to make up their own minds.
      More than anything, the Bill's passage shows that the Government have very little understanding of the importance of Members of Parliament and of our role—on both sides of the House—of scrutinising the Executive. It is deeply dispiriting to see hon. Members allowing themselves to be patsies of the Executive.
      In the debate on amendment No. 2, the facts have been further twisted. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—the twister par excellence—managed to say that the Conservative party has a 3:1 majority in the upper House. Yet the Government's own White Paper states that 476 peers have taken the Conservative Whip, out of a total of 1,165 peers. Goodness only knows how 41 per cent. of peers could constitute a 3:1 majority. Ability and attention to detail have never been the strong points of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—who just said that Labour has 3 per cent. of votes in the House of Lords, whereas the White Paper states that there are 175 Labour peers, out of a total of 1,165.
      Mr. Linton: I said that the Conservatives and Cross Benchers have 80 per cent. of the votes of hereditary peers—of whose votes the Labour party has 3 per cent., and the Liberal Democrats have 4 per cent. The figures are from the White Paper; the hon. Gentleman can check them. While he is on his feet, will he explain something

      761
      that has been troubling me since he spoke in the previous debate? Does he, or does he not, support the hereditary principle?
      Dr. Fox: That is a very good red herring, with which I shall deal later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman cannot be so selective in his figures. In a Chamber comprising 1,165 peers, there are 175 Labour peers. I should be the first to acknowledge that that is well below the number that would accord with Labour's voting strength in any recent general election. However, the hon. Gentleman should try not to twist the figures that he gives to the Committee—as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool did.
      The hon. Member for Battersea asked me about the hereditary principle, and I should like to deal with that point—although you, Mr. Martin, may rule me out of order if I do so. I have not heard any Labour Member say that he or she is against the hereditary principle itself. Labour Members do not seem to be against handing property over to their children, or against the monarchy's line of succession. They should therefore not confuse the hereditary principle with an hereditary ability to vote in the House of Lords. However, I know that I am straying far from the territory covered by the amendment. I can tell by the benign look that comes over your face before you stand up, Mr. Martin, that I had better move on and deal with another point.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Simply for the sake of certainty and of clarity, may we return briefly to the figures, and to whether the Conservatives have a 3:1 majority in the other place? The hon. Gentleman has already quoted from the White Paper, which says that the Conservative party has 476 peers and that Labour has 175 peers. The Conservative party therefore has, roughly, a 3:1 majority over Labour.
      Mr. Evans: What about the Liberal Democrats?
      Mr. Tipping: The Liberal Democrats have 69 peers.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are going back to the Second Reading debate, rather than keeping to the amendment.
      Dr. Fox: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool said earlier that the Conservatives had a 3:1 majority over all others. That is where the numbers were twisted.
      This is an exercise in the cynicism that we expect from a Government who treat Parliament, particularly their Back Benchers, with contempt. Perhaps, one day, Labour Back Benchers will develop a little self-respect and sense of history and realise that they are here for a purpose other than serving the Labour party—they are here to serve their constituents. The amendment would make a bad Bill marginally better and we shall support it.
      In a supine effort even by the doorstep standards of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised one important point about Lord Cranborne. We have never argued with the substance of the amendment. It was agreed with Lord Weatherill. Lord Cranborne was sacked for defying the authority of the shadow Cabinet and for trying to trade away something that is not tradeable: the Opposition's
      762
      duty—it is not just a right or an ability—to oppose the Government in both Houses. It is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise the Government and to bring the Government to account. That cannot be traded away. There can be no deal because we are not willing to trade away our ability to oppose.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: Was not Lord Cranborne negotiating with the Government to make the Bill closer to what he and his colleagues would like? The Leader of the Opposition had proved himself not only unable but unwilling to do that, saying that the Conservatives would oppose the Bill and defy the Government's mandate without giving an inch.
      Dr. Fox: That was the Mensa version of doormat. That does not invalidate what I have said. A position cannot be negotiated on behalf of a party without the party's authority. That authority has to come from the leader of the party. All the Liberal Democrat Members want to be the leader at the moment, so I understand why they make little bids now and again.
      In trying to secure support for the amendment in the other place, we shall not trade away our ability to oppose the Government.
      The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I shall not take more than a second of the Committee's time. The hon. Gentleman's repeated assertion that an attempt was made to persuade his party to give up its proper duty to oppose cannot be allowed to pass without challenge. No such attempt was made. We are talking not about proper opposition or proper scrutiny of Government legislation or other proposals, but about the possibility of organised disruption and hooliganism and a straightforward abuse of the power that the Conservatives have always enjoyed in the House of Lords. We certainly want that to be traded away.
      Dr. Fox: Last night, the Leader of the House told my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that she had no right to move the amendment—an amendment that the Government will support in another place—and that she was wasting the time of the Committee. The Government seem to regard any reasonable scrutiny of their policies as time wasting. They regard the unwillingness of both Houses to roll over and die when faced with their power as filibustering.
      Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Perhaps he was not in the Chamber at the time. I do not criticise him for that. I accused the hon. Member for Epping Forest of wasting the time of the Committee because she repeatedly demanded that I come to the Dispatch Box to say what I had already said and what was clearly on record as the Government's attitude. I thought that that was somewhat time-wasting.
      Dr. Fox: It was entirely appropriate for my hon. Friend to say that the Government's position was not clear. The Government have said that they are going to force their Back Benchers to vote one way tonight and the opposite way the next time. There cannot be a more perverse way

      763
      of carrying forward business in the House. If the Government have such moral double-speak, how can they be surprised that the rest of the Committee is confused?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I understand the duty of the Conservative party to oppose and frustrate. Can the hon. Gentleman envisage any circumstances in which his party would accept Government proposals seeking an agreed way forward? Outside this place, many people consider that we are playing games. It should be within the capacity of men and women here to reach an agreed settlement on one reform fairly immediately. Are there circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to do that?
      Dr. Fox: There are, and if we had had the royal commission some time ago, we could now be considering the results and moving on to subsequent reform. It would be far better to move to a single-stage reform by consensus than to have the current piecemeal approach. The last time such reform was proposed, it was frustrated not in the other place, but by Back Benchers on both sides of this House who did not want a challenge to the power of the House of Commons by the other place.
      New clause 12, on which we may seek to divide later, relates to the Scottish peers and the Act of Union. Article 22 of the 1707 Act of Union provides for the number of Scottish representatives in the Parliament of Great Britain. Article 23 provides for the peers of Scotland to have
      "all Privileges of Parliament which the Peers of England now have and which they or any Peers of Great Britain shall have after the Union".
      By the Act of Union, the Scottish peers—who had previously sat in the Scottish Parliament—were not granted seats in the united Parliament, but were granted the right to elect 16 of their number as a quid pro quo for the loss of their seats in the Scottish House of Lords.
      The system was abolished by the Peerage Act 1963, which granted all peers of Scotland a seat in the House of Lords. Peerages created subsequent to the Act of Union were made as peerages of Great Britain, and there were no further creations of peers of England or Scotland. The schedule to the Bill repeals section 4 of the Peerage Act 1963, which repeals the section of the Act of Union that deals with the election of Scottish peers but deems that all Scottish peers have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
      I would like to know from the Leader of the House what advice the Government have had on whether the proposal contravenes the Act of Union. The Leader of the House may say that the 1963 Act has already altered the Act of Union. Although the 1963 Act did, in practice, amend the provision of the Act of Union for 16 Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords, it did not run contrary to it. It did not prevent 16 peers from sitting; it merely said that all Scottish peers could sit in the House of Lords.
      The House of Lords Bill repeals the 1963 Act, and prevents 16 Scottish peers from sitting. The Leader of the House may claim that the number of life peers who are Scottish is far in excess of 16, and that therefore the spirit of the Act is not broken. However, all life peers are peers of Great Britain, not Scotland—and, therefore, the letter of the Act of Union is most certainly broken. In the absence of any stage 2 proposals, there is no guaranteed Scottish representation in the House of Lords.
      764
      All this becomes much more important when we look at the piecemeal and incoherent proposals from the Government on devolution. This is a serious issue on which I would like the Leader of the House to reply. No doubt there was considerable legal discussion about this matter in Government circles before they published the Bill. For a Bill to break the Act of Union would be a serious matter—although, given the contempt with which the Government treat Parliament, it would not be at all surprising. It would be nice to have some answers, just for once. Perhaps we could have the same answer here that will be given in the other Chamber.
      Mr. John McAllion: I wish to intervene briefly in the debate—not least because of the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the Act of Union and the need for Scottish representation in the form of unelected peers sitting in an unelected second House of Parliament. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Act of Union represented the status quo in Scotland before the 1997 general election? The only defender of that status quo in Scotland was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, which was truly routed in the 1997 general election.
      The will of the Scottish people was that the terms of the Act of Union be renegotiated and changed through the constitutional changes introduced by the Government in this Parliament, including the reform of the House of Lords—which the people of Scotland are completely behind. There is very little sentiment in Scotland for unelected peers to represent our country in a second Chamber of this Parliament. The hon. Member for Woodspring—who has been away from Scotland for some considerable time—shows how out of touch he is with genuine opinion in Scotland by tabling an amendment that would have no support, I suspect, even among the Scottish Conservative party.
      I am delighted to be able to follow my Whips' instructions tonight and vote against amendment No. 2. I have no desire whatever to save the political skins of the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Earl Marshal, or any of the other 89 hereditary peers referred to in the amendment.
      If the hon. Member for Woodspring is concerned about Labour Members being only half-opposed to the hereditary principle, I can assure him that I am opposed to it wherever it rears its head. There is no place in democratic politics for people to inherit positions of power and influence rather than being elected by their peers—by which I mean their ordinary fellow citizens.
      5.30 pm
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does that apply to the monarchy, in the hon. Gentleman's view?
      Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. I have long been a republican and have made no secret of that fact, along with several of my hon. Friends. We would argue in any referendum or debate for the establishment of a republic, as exists in most democratic countries.
      Mrs. Laing: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his honesty and consistency. His position is perfectly reasonable. He disagrees with me, but he has every right

      765
      to do so. Will he vote against the amendment and any similar amendment, whenever there is an opportunity to do so?
      Mr. McAllion: Yes. I was coming to that. I am happy to follow the Whips' advice tonight, but I am less happy with the clear implication, and the view of many of my hon. Friends, that, although we are voting against the amendment tonight, we will be asked to vote for a similar or identical amendment from the other place, not because we agree with it or think it right but because it is a price that we have to pay: a Danegeld that the House of Commons has to pay to the unelected House because of the threat of what it may do if we do not.
      The House of Lords threatens not only to block the Bill and frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons but to wreck the elected Government's entire programme. For that deeply undemocratic behaviour, we are expected to reward 91 hereditary peers with a job for life. Their power to frustrate the elected House will continue unchecked under the new arrangements.
      It is deeply dangerous for the House of Commons to give in to that blackmail and to write into our constitutional arrangements a deeply undemocratic strain that allows the other House continually to check our will and to threaten disruption if we are not prepared to give in to their demands.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. How many Government Bills has the House of Lords wrecked, and on what subjects?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There has been some leeway on these amendments, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go as wide as that.
      Mr. McAllion: Let us be honest about it: the amendment was not generated here; an agreement was arrived at in the other House before it was handed over to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). The question before us is whether we—the elected representatives of the people—give in to the House of Lords and accede to its demands by voting for the amendment. Should we give in to the demands of people who are not elected by anyone, be they hereditary peers or those who sit in the other House by virtue of the Prime Minister's patronage?
      It would be deeply wrong of us to give up our democratic credentials to a House that is not elected and should not in any sense be able to tell us what we can or cannot do. That is why I will vote against the amendment and against any similar Lords amendment.
      We are told that there is nothing that we can do and that, because the Government do not have a majority in the other place, they must always bow the knee to it because of the threat of disruption, but that is not an insurmountable barrier. If the elected House and the elected Government were determined to do something about the unelected House of Lords, they could do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has told us time and again how the problems could be overcome by the creation of sufficient peers to ensure that we could abolish the unelected nature of the House of Lords at a stroke. The problem is that the House of
      766
      Commons has not yet made up its mind what to do about the House of Lords. That is the real problem, and it is why we are confronted with this difficulty tonight.
      Many hon. Members, including Labour Members, fear an elected second Chamber on the ground that it could mean some diminution of the power of this House. That is why a compromise involving some form of unelected second House has been developed. However, such a compromise takes us away from the point of principle and leaves us at the mercy of the hereditary peers, who say that what is suggested as a replacement for them is no better than the hereditary principle.
      I beg the Government to have the confidence of their democratic principles and credentials. As a Scottish Member, I am acutely conscious of the constitutional theory that underpins the United Kingdom—the Act of Union, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred. Under our constitutional arrangements, sovereignty does not rest with the people. In every other democracy in the modern world—in America, France and Germany, for example—sovereignty rests with the people, but, under our arrangements, it rests with the Queen and Parliament. That means that it rests with an unelected monarch, an unelected House of Lords, and an elected House of Commons.
      That traps us in the past. It prevents us from being the proper, modern and democratic country that most others are, and all our fiddling about with what should happen with a second Chamber will make us a laughing stock unless we come to terms with that reality. It is time that this House grew up and realised that it should move into the 21st century with the rest of the world.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I begin by apologising, Mr. Martin, for my absence at the beginning of today's debate, when I was due to continue the speech that I began last night. I received an injection at lunch time and its effects meant that I could not be here earlier, but I am here now.
      This debate is not about the eventual abolition of the rights of hereditary peers, which no doubt will come about sooner or later. It is really about the crucial matter of the composition of the interim Chamber between the time when this Bill is passed and the second stage of the process, which is the genuine creation of a modern, reformed House of Lords.
      As I was saying in the last 60 seconds of last night's debate, the big question is whether the Government and the Leader of the House—whom I am very glad to see in her place—will let us have a proper debate, in this elected House of Commons, on that supremely important issue. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady is answering the debate, and I hope that we shall get a constructive response.
      The Government have moved a bit and are entitled to some credit for doing so. Their outward stance for the first 18 months of this Parliament matched their manifesto proposals. The Government proposed the simple, naked abolition of the rights of hereditary peers and the consequent mutilation of the existing House of Lords which, whatever its origins, in many ways works quite well. They had no constructive proposals for what would replace it. As I and others have said, that can rightly be described as an act of constitutional vandalism. Watching the Prime Minister at Question Time some months ago

      767
      not merely defending but luxuriating in what he seemed to regard as an almost ritual act of destruction—with some Labour Members behind him baying in support—was pretty bewitching, but it was no credit to parliamentary democracy on the eve of the 21st century.
      Behind the scenes, however—and fostered by a mixture of common sense and a recognition of the need for parliamentary tactics—more sensible discussions were going on. Yesterday, the Government seemed to describe those discussions as some sort of open consultation. That was pretty good nonsense, but Lord Cranborne and Lord Richard—the then Leader of the House of Lords—were thinking about and tussling through to something approaching a sensible compromise for the interim. The result was the Weatherill amendment, as it is now called, which the Government have openly acknowledged and in effect recommended in the White Paper.
      We are not allowed to vote on that amendment because the Government are determined to keep the whip hand in the Lords. They threaten not to permit any sensible interim Chamber to be created unless they get their way and unless they get their business through in what they regard as a reasonable time scale.
      I have never been a Whip, but the Government are, within reason, entitled to pass their business. However, they are not entitled to stifle debate. I am asking for a more open mind from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the House, because I suspect that although the Weatherill amendment is significantly better than nothing at all, it is by no means the best option for an interim Chamber.
      The substance of amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 is simple. They offer an alternative way forward for the interim Chamber. They would mean that the Bill should not come into force for six months after Royal Assent. During that time—although there is no reason why the thinking process should not begin immediately—the Government should, in the words of amendment No. 18,
      "make inquiry and lay a report before both Houses of Parliament, setting out the names of all current hereditary peers who have played a significant role in the workings of the House of Lords during the ten years preceding the passing of this Act; and such hereditary peers shall be entitled to remain members of the House of Lords, pending the enactment of proposals for the wider reform of the House of Lords following the report of the Royal Commission and public consultation concerning its proposals."
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not necessarily disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but its underlying ethic is a little hypocritical. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was part of a Government who rammed business through Parliament, used more guillotines than any other and completely ignored the concept of parliamentary debate in many areas. He was the Solicitor—General in a Government who abused democracy and parliamentary debate. I am a great admirer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I find it a little sickening to hear him use such abuse as an underlying argument.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: A soft answer turneth away wrath. I can only say that I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) debate matters extremely effectively during
      768
      the time when my Government were supposed to be abusing and stifling debate. He slightly overstates his case.
      Amendment No. 18 explains in a nutshell my suggestion of the right way to proceed. The amendment can perhaps be improved on, but its substance has real merit. Labour Members should recognise that the amendment would allow the Government to achieve their key objective—the ending of the hereditary principle in the medium term. Although the number of hereditary peers involved would be rather more than the 91 proposed by the Weatherill amendment, my amendment would, like Weatherill, give the Government no grounds to fear any future defeat by what they like to describe as an influx of backwoodsmen.
      I believe that my amendments improve on the proposal for 91. One great strength of the House of Lords is the sheer diversity of talent on which it is able to draw. Those talents come in significant measure from the life peers who resulted from the great Conservative constitutional reform of 1963, on which the Prime Minister has built by creating 105 new life peers.
      Significant diversity also comes, however, from the ranks of the hereditary peers, and not only from among those likely to make up the 91. Many others have made, or could in future make, a real contribution to the upper House. They have helped to give it breadth and wisdom, but they have spoken comparatively infrequently, or their main work has been less public as members of House of Lords Select Committees.
      It is invidious to give names, and I shall do so only to illustrate my point, as I did yesterday when we discussed the possibility of a right to speak but not vote. The group to which I refer includes peers who have played a huge role in matters to do with the environment, legal issues, trade unions and criminal justice. However, the number of their speeches during the past six years has been comparatively small.
      To recap the statistics, roughly 90 peers have spoken more than 40 times in that six-year period. I take my figures from the parliamentary on-line information service—POLIS—computer in the Library of the House, to which I am indebted. About 250 hereditary peers have spoken between five and 40 times and have lent the upper House great weight in doing so. Another example that I did not give yesterday was that of Lord Ridley, who is recognised nationwide by those who understand the subject for his profound insight into local government. [Interruption.] No, Lord Ridley has a remarkable insight and if the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) knew him, he would recognise that fact. Frequently, he was a constructive critic of the Conservative Government when we were in power—[Interruption.]
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Edward Ganier: We just heard some guffawing from Labour Members. It may have resulted from confusion over the identity of the Lord Ridley whom my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind. I think that he is referring to the noble Viscount,

      769
      whereas the guffaws might have been directed at the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Nicholas Ridley.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes, and I see that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead accepts my hon. and learned Friend's tuition.
      Another example is Lord Gowrie on the arts. Since he ceased to be a Minister, he has spoken in the Chamber six times, but to great effect. I mentioned Lord Runciman, who chaired the royal commission on criminal justice and who has spoken 12 times.
      One can take a spread of distinguished peers, some hereditary and some created. It is interesting to note from the figures that some life peers who play an important role in the House of Lords, and who will be able to continue to do so, do not speak often, but when they do so it is to great effect. That is part of the richness of the wider aspect of the United Kingdom Parliament. I mentioned Lord Selbome yesterday, a hereditary peer who is widely respected as almost pre-eminent on the environment, as is Lord Alexander of Weedon—a life peer—on the City. Our old colleagues from this House, such as Lord Merlyn-Rees, Lord Whitelaw and the late Lord Tonypandy played a big part after going to the House of Lords, but only spoke about 25 times in six years. The Countess of Mar is another example, as is Lord Wedderburn, the distinguished Labour life peer.
      Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know whether he was present throughout our proceedings yesterday, but virtually everything that he has said in the past few minutes was said by his colleagues then.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I said it myself.
      Mr. Mandelson: Others did as well. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the Committee that he is not simply reading from some prepared sheet that is being circulated among Conservative Members?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I can assure the House that I am reading from a prepared sheet, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen, and I wrote it myself. I am also quoting figures that I gave the Committee myself. The right hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself, waving his arm round and round—spinning, I suppose—but he was not in the Committee yesterday, or not for long anyway.
      Mr. Mandelson rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If we concern ourselves with who was in the Committee yesterday, we are straying from the amendment.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: You are right, Mr. Martin. Occasionally, I have wondered whether I might come across an old lady with a spinning wheel in some high room in this House, and now I have come across her.
      We must also consider the work of the Select Committees of the House of Lords. I met Lord Merlyn-Rees this morning—he is a neighbour—and he told me that he regarded the work of those Committees as some of the most valuable work done by the upper House.
      770
      Ten of the 20 members of the European Communities Committee, which is one of the largest and most influential Select Committees in the House, are hereditary peers. That Committee has six sub-Committees and the Chairmen of four of them are also hereditary peers. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is unusual in having only one hereditary peer, Lord Ampthill; but hereditary peers play a significant role in the Committees on science and the arts and the in domestic Committees, which are in effect the usual channels in the other place.
      The bottom line of my argument is that there are about 150—and perhaps as many as 200—hereditary peers who play a significant role in the work of the upper House and without whom it would be a poorer place. That number of hereditary peers is no threat to the Government, but their combined voices should cause the Government to check when they are wrong and would give no doubt welcome support when the Government are right. I am referring to hereditary peers of all parties and of none.
      We look for constructive action from the Government. The Government have a duty to govern, which means that they have a duty to propose ideas themselves. Sitting haughtily in a corner and saying that there is a huge Conservative majority in the Lords that they are going to destroy, but that they are going to put nothing in its place to renew the upper House, is simply not good enough. The amendment offers a genuinely constructive way forward and I ask the Government to accept it.
      If the Government are afraid to do that, for fear—as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) explained—of losing the whip hand given to them by the threat of using the Parliament Acts, I ask the Government at least to recognise the strength of the argument, to discuss it with Lord Weatherill and others and to use it to build on the Weatherill proposals. In that way, they can ensure that, however short or long the interim period is, the interim Chamber retains as much as possible of that which is good in the current Chamber.
      There is simply no need to destroy. Proper reform, in this area of the constitution above all, should be incremental and evolutionary and should proceed step by step. Removing the rights of hereditary peers is one step, but alone it is just not good enough. True reform must be constructive and build on the best of what exists. Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 offer a way ahead and I commend them to the Committee.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I shall speak only briefly on this group of amendments. I reiterate my disappointment that the former Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Richard, was dispatched in July and that Viscount Cranborne, former Leader of the Opposition in the other place, was later dispatched by the Leader of the Opposition in this place. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should have allowed them to explore exhaustively the possibility of agreement on an interim House, or of concluding the reforms in one Act, by consensus. I cannot help but feel that the opportunity to reform and democratise our Parliament is being jeopardised by the tactical considerations of both the Government and the Opposition.
      It is not unreasonable to point out to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and to Opposition Front Benchers that there is still scope for them to come to some

      771
      sort of agreement—one that would not jeopardise the Opposition's duty to oppose, but which, if enacted fairly swiftly, would give them opportunities to increase the parliamentary checks, balances and scrutiny that we all want. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) does not achieve that.
      In some weeks' time, there is to be a charade played out, in which I and my colleagues are to be persuaded to vote for the amendment. I am not happy about that. I shall remain deeply concerned that an unsatisfactory "interim" House will endure and the hereditaries stay. I implore my parliamentary colleagues to pause and consider whether there can be some sort of agreement that would be mutually beneficial, enhance the Opposition's opportunity to oppose and enable scrutiny to be provided.
      In any event, the concept of the hereditary peers enduring in Parliament is unacceptable. At the general election, an overwhelming mandate was given for their being expunged from Parliament. The whole hereditary principle is alien to those of us who are socialists and to many other people who would not use that term but who, would call themselves democrats.
      Yesterday, in what might have appeared a somewhat flippant intervention, I referred to the need for DNA testing—after all, who are the hereditaries? There is no prospect of DNA testing being introduced, but let us pause to think: there are people who sit as Members of Parliament by hereditary right, but is there no possibility of infidelity having occurred in their families over the past few hundred years? I do not believe that those people are all legitimate—hands up anyone who is certain that his or her lineage has not strayed outside of wedlock. Even if one accepts the hereditary principle, the position of the hereditary peers is absurd. It is legitimate for us to raise such matters.
      I shall come in a moment to the point raised by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the Act of Union, but first let me tell the Committee about the time I spent in another place listening to the tortuous case about who exactly was the legitimate Lord Moynihan; a case in which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who was then the Attorney—General, made representations. The legitimate Lord Moynihan had to fight his case over many weeks and witnesses had to be brought from the far east. Presumably, similar cases might occur in future if the amendment were accepted: perhaps, at the critical moment, the election of the representative hereditary peers could be held up by such disputes. The rules are unbelievably arcane and I invite those who are interested in such matters to look at the Moynihan case so that they can see for themselves how absurd the whole process is.
      If that case does not persuade the Committee, let us recall the time of the Maastricht debates during a previous Parliament. A good peer upped and died and a Member of this place, Lord Douglas James Hamilton, thought that he might have inherited the title, but there was a vote in the Commons that evening, so Lord Douglas James Hamilton—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Lord James Douglas-Hamilton"] Yes, that one. He went down to the Victoria Tower and repudiated or renounced, whatever the term is, a peerage that he might have inherited.
      772
      I use the word "might" deliberately, because the inheritance became the subject of a trial in which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was challenged by his cousin.
      I trotted down to the Victoria Tower after him and made a thorough nuisance of myself by asking to see the documents and the books. After insisting on seeing the register and the instrument by which the peerage was renunciated, I put all the questions I could to a bewildered man from the Lord Chancellor's Department. Finally, when I became exhausted, I asked him, "Are you telling me that someone can come down here and renounce a peerage that they might have inherited?" The man looked me straight in the eye and said, "Yes." I then asked, "Does that mean I could come down here tonight and renounce the peerage of Glenfiddich?" He looked at me and answered, "Yes." That is the sort of absurdity that surrounds the vital question of whether or not someone can sit as a Member of Parliament. This is all factual stuff.
      Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it is all factual stuff. However, he might like to recall the occasion on which that renunciation took place and the reason why it was so important: it was that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton represented the Government's majority in the House of Commons at the time.
      6 pm
      Mr. Mackinlay: That is an historical fact, but my argument is that we should tolerate no longer than is absolutely necessary even one hereditary peer in Parliament, because the whole thing is absurd. The pantomime that I described underlines that point.
      The hon. Member for Woodspring, who is not present, raised, in a rather spurious point, the Act of Union. I refer to that because Conservative peers created a precedent on this issue—I went to the Lords to watch the case—when they sat in judgment on a peer of Ireland who wanted them to restore his right to sit in the Lords.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Mackinlay: You allowed the hon. Member for Woodspring to raise this issue, Mr. Martin. He was referring to what would happen to Scottish peerages if the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Epping Forest were accepted. I simply want to draw attention to the fact that under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Irish peers withered on the vine and the last one to hold his seat was the grandfather of Richard Needham, who died in the 1950s. That Act accepted the fact that Parliament could abrogate the right of the peers of Ireland to sit here. After all, rightly or wrongly, a quarter of Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is relevant to our discussion because peers of Ireland who were sitting in the House in 1921, when the Irish free state was set up and Ireland became an independent country, were allowed to continue to sit here for the rest of their lives. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good example of the way that reform can be carried out in a transitional way that enables the country to continue to benefit from the wisdom of peers while changing its system? That demonstrates the evolutionary nature of reform, which is preferable to a destructive approach.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I do not think that anybody should sit in Parliament by reason of birth, because that is an

      773
      absolute absurdity. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I reject it. I was drawing attention to the narrow point that there is no impediment to our doing away with the hereditary peerages. That would not in any way jeopardise the Act of Union with Scotland. Just as, in 1920, with the Government of Ireland Act, this place can decide to abrogate the right of Scottish peers to sit in the British Parliament. The end of the Irish peerage did not take immediate effect because those peers withered on the vine. During the previous Parliament, a case was retried by the House of Lords, which had a Conservative majority, who said that Irish peers had no right to sit in Parliament. That is the only point that I want to make.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). They are not the best solution, which would be to keep what we have at the moment. The next best solution would be to abolish the House of Lords altogether.
      I say that because we have in our country a system of government called the integration of powers. That means that the Executive are selected from the legislature. The chain of accountability goes from the Executive, through the House of Commons, to the people. The people are sovereign because the House of Commons is sovereign, and that sovereignty is maintained by the existing system. With, or perhaps because of, all the system's impurities in the House of Lords, to which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred in a colourful way when he mentioned Lord Moynihan, who is present in the Gallery—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to make such a reference to anyone outside the Committee.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I apologise, Mr. Martin.
      The essence of the present situation is that there is no real rivalry between the two Houses. That position would be maintained by the amendments or by the abolition of the House of Lords. In the past, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has persuasively argued exactly that by saying that to maintain the sovereignty of the Commons, we should not change the Lords except to abolish it.
      If we decide to change the present system, almost any alternative that is likely to be proposed will create a new rivalry between the Commons and the Lords. That will certainly occur under an appointments system, to which we shall refer in later amendments, whether or not people are directly appointed by the Government. The Executive would clearly be in charge of the House of Lords even if Members of that House were directly elected, because the Executive would have the capacity to divide and rule the two Houses of Parliament.
      That possibility was recognised in New Zealand, which is a good example because it had a constitution identical to ours. New Zealanders recognised that if they set up a system of rival Houses from which the Executive would be chosen and to which they would report, that would give the Executive enormous new powers to divide and rule.
      If keeping the present system, in which there is no question about the sovereignty of the House of Commons, is not on the menu, we should change to a system that is
      774
      similar to it. Of course the proposals are a dog's breakfast, a mess of pottage and all the other descriptions that they were given in yesterday's debates, but that is exactly my point. The sovereignty of the Commons and, through that, its ability to hold the Executive to account, will be maintained, and that is why I support the amendments.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: As Churchill said, the people are sovereign, and many of us take the view that the House of Commons is not in itself sovereign but is the ultimate expression of the sovereignty that lies with the people.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is exactly my view of the House of Commons. That is why I believe that no House of Commons can bind a future House. The single currency perverts that principle because its effect is permanent and binds every future House of Commons. The sovereignty of the House is what matters.
      Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to the sovereignty of the House of Commons. If the Commons is genuinely sovereign, why do we have to accept the compromise being forced on us by the House of Lords?
      Sir Michael Spicer: That is for the hon. Gentleman to discuss with his Front-Bench colleagues. The House of Commons can do what it likes, as he well knows, especially in this particular House of Commons. I do not believe that the House has too much power, however. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the House is the representation of the people's sovereignty and that must be maintained.
      Mr. Garnier: The complaint of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) relates not to the power of the House of Lords, but to the power of the Executive over this House.
      Sir Michael Spicer: But my point is that, at the end of the day, the House of Commons is elected by the people and from it the Executive are chosen. I conclude by saying that I support the amendments for the reasons that I have given.
      Mr. Grieve: I shall try to be brief. The debate has certainly been interesting, but I found the comments of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) a little rich. It is only because we have been badgering the Government consistently for a long time that we have a feasible opportunity to discuss these issues, instead of the Government having an easy path to getting rid of hereditary peers and doing nothing else. I welcome this debate because at least we are beginning to have constructive discussion about options for the future of a truly representative and democratic upper House. In that regard, Conservative Members are probably far more radical than the majority of Labour Members.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), in speaking to amendments Nos. 16 to 18, made a compelling case, and I do not want go back over that ground. I was happy to put my name to several amendments because a mechanism by which the talent that exists among hereditary peers can be maintained in the interim Chamber is worth while.

      775
      My chief concern has always been, in relation to amendment No. 2, the possibility of representative peers, elected by their number, joining the interim Chamber. I am afraid that I take a slightly legalistic view on the issue. There are compelling grounds for believing that the amendment, if passed, will also help the upper House in its deliberations; but, quite apart from that, I am at a loss to understand the process by which we are embarking on reform.
      If it were to be suggested that this House might wish to dispense with 300 parliamentary seats, it would be within our power to do so, and I would expect us to vote on it, and I would expect that, at the subsequent general election, there would be 300 seats fewer and that, thereafter, those seats would be redistributed. However, I would not expect us to expel 300 Members from the Chamber halfway through the currency of a Parliament. Yet what we are proposing to do in relation to the upper House, in relation to the hereditary peers, who do have rights—even if sometimes, listening to Labour Members, one wonders whether they have cottoned on to that—is to get rid of their right to represent themselves halfway through the currency of a Parliament—[Interruption.] Yes, without any right of representation thereafter.
      Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Grieve: Not at the moment.
      One thing that has especially puzzled me about the Government's ready acceptance of the Weatherill amendment is the fact that it occurred to me that they were aware of that issue, and realised that it would be a neat way of solving the problem. Before Labour Members say that it is a non-issue, I must tell them that I differ.
      We spent a considerable part of last year discussing the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our law, a move that I supported. I remember the Home Secretary saying that the European convention was not going to be the be-all and end-all—it was simply the foundation on which subsequent, better rights were to be based. How on earth do we square the principle whereby we have consistently denied peers the right to vote in elections and—rightly—will continue to deny life peers that right because they will still be able to represent themselves, with a system whereby, arbitrarily, halfway through a Parliament, we say to a whole group of people, who have also been deprived of the right to vote, "Out you go on your ear; you will have no representation for the rest of this Parliament"?
      The beauty of the Weatherill amendment, and the reason why the Government should have tabled it instead of waiting for it to be brought from the upper House, is that it solves that problem in a way that I consider to be acceptable. However, I should be interested to hear from the Leader of the House the Government's view on that point.
      Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that one of the problems with the present Government was that we could never understand what they were trying to do—they would not tell us. However, I must tell her that one of the problems is that the Government have reached such a pinnacle of arrogance that they seem to imagine, in their inclusiveness, that they know what each one of us thinks.
      776
      On Second Reading, I wished to ask the Leader of the House about that very point when she developed her arguments. I asked:
      "Will the right hon. Lady give way?"
      She replied:
      "No, I am awfully sorry. I must get on. I feel confident that I could answer the hon. Gentleman's point."
      I said:
      "The right hon. Lady does not know what it is yet."
      The Leader of the House replied:
      "I do."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999: Vol. 324, c. 615.]
      The Leader of the House has many attributes, but that of being a clairvoyant and a witch was not one that I had thought that she would claim as part of her own. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] If that is the quality of the way in which debate is going to be addressed in the Committee, I hope very much that I have now enlightened her so that her clairvoyance may have proved to have been justified, and I hope at long last to have a reply to my question.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We are discussing a transitional Parliament. There are 200 to 300 active hereditary peers, and we are considering their right to sit, speak and vote in another place. Amendment No. 2 proposes that some 91 of their number should be retained. My preference under a stage 2 replaced House of Lords would be for an elected House of Lords. Under that system, some—at least 91, probably 100 to 150—of those 200 to 300 would be elected in any case. We are therefore talking about a transition.
      The Government have made it quite clear that they will accept an amendment in another place but not an amendment in this Committee. Indeed, the House of Lords—I am sorry, the Leader of the House; I elevate her already, but I am sure that she would like to be elevated—made it quite clear that
      "if such a proposal is made in the Lords and the Government's legislative programme is not being frustrated, we are minded to accept it."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 609.]
      There we have it. The pressure—I was going to say, "the blackmail", but that would have been unparliamentary —to be brought on the other place is that, if its Members behave, they will be allowed to move that amendment. There we have it—the power of the Executive. That is what this is all about—patronage.
      Patronage is being exerted in another way—a second, and even more insidious way—because, as I understand it, if this amendment is accepted in another place, it is also accepted that the Government will create sufficient life peers of their own political colour to make up the political balance.
      I cannot understand what the fuss is all about. If amendment No. 2 were passed tonight, we would allow 91 of the most active, most eminent, most knowledgeable hereditary peers to remain and take part in the great democracy of this country—and yet the Government will not accept that. I cannot understand the gerrymandering that is taking place, purely so that they can use the Parliament Acts if their Lordships in another place do not behave. It is lack of principle; it is gerrymandering of our democracy. Future generations will judge it as such.
      Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on winding up the debate in the spirit in which much of it has been conducted.

      777
      There is a group of amendments before us. What all but amendment No. 25, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), have in common is the desire to "save" some group of hereditary peers in the transitional House and to write that into the basic Bill as it leaves the Committee of this House. All but amendment No. 25, and new clause 12, which raises a different point, in one way or another seek to water down the Bill—as amendment No. 10 says, to restrict rather than to end the rights of hereditary peers.
      The principle of the Bill, as it is put before the Committee by the Government, is that hereditary peers should cease to sit and vote by right of inheritance. The Government are not prepared to risk the existence and passage of that basic Bill. We made that point plain—I believe perfectly courteously and quite straightforwardly—on Second Reading. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) moved amendment No. 2 in order to air issues that we all know may well be raised in the House of Lords, although it is not clear how the Conservative party will then vote, or whether such an amendment will be carried. Nevertheless, we have had a debate on the possibility that such an amendment will be tabled, and may be carried and return to the House.
      I am sorry to say that we have had a rather strange debate in some ways—one in which, from the outset, some rather intemperate, not to say extravagant, arguments and language have been used. The Government have been accused of stopping debate on this issue. In fact, we were accused of preventing debate today, even after some hours of debate had occurred. We have done nothing to stop or to impede the debate. What we refused to do, and what we continue to refuse to do, is, as a Government, to put forward a proposal along the lines of that in amendment No. 2, because it is not our proposal.
      It is a little unusual, as you will remember, Mr. Martin, and as several hon. Members observed yesterday and today, for a Government to be attacked for arrogance, obstruction of debate and undermining democracy for daring to signal that they might be prepared to compromise. Yesterday, Opposition Members repeatedly asserted that debate on this proposal would in some way be restricted by taking place—as it may well—if the Bill returns so amended from the House of Lords. That is nonsense, as they well know. There is nothing in the Bill, or in any intention stated or signalled by the Government, to curtail debate on this matter. The Government have no quarrel with the Opposition raising the issue—it is perfectly reasonable that they should.
      It is perfectly reasonable that Conservative Members should have a bit of a knockabout at the Government's expense at the possibility that we may vote against the amendment tonight but, in a few weeks or months, we may accept a similar amendment. We have no quarrel with their right to do so. However, I suggest, in all sincerity, that wilder assertions about honour, integrity and blatant abuse of power are a very strong currency that we should be wary of devaluing by using to bolster an otherwise rather weak argument.
      Laying side the tenor of the arguments deployed in this debate, the proposal to modify the Government's Bill will come—if it comes at all—from Cross-Bench peers. It is not a party proposal: it is not a Labour proposal and, presumably, it does not come from the Conservative Front Bench—if it did, a Conservative Front Bencher would
      778
      have moved it. The Government are prepared to look favourably upon such an amendment if it seems likely to smooth the passage to stage 1 of reform, and hence allow us to move more quickly to stage 2.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am terribly grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Will she answer the question that we have asked repeatedly: is it not odd for the Government to take the view that something is beneficial for the constitution if their lordships cause no trouble but, if their lordships cause trouble, that very same thing is not beneficial for the constitution?
      Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not the point. The Government would prefer the Bill that is before the Committee to pass on to the statute book. However, if it will assist the passage of this and other beneficial legislation regarding issues that, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, are of much greater interest to the people of this country to accept something in the nature of a compromise, the Government are by no means unwilling to do that—despite all that has been said about our arrogance and insensitivity. I do not know why the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) finds that so difficult to grasp.
      I understand and sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. He is anxious that the fact that there is no time limit on the transitional House could allow 90 or so hereditary peers—if such an amendment is accepted—to remain indefinitely. I understand his concern, but I ask him not to press amendment No. 25. It is not needed because, despite what has been said in the debate, the Government have no intention of stopping indefinitely at the transitional House.
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What is the right hon. Lady's reaction to the comments by Lord Weatherill, which were reported in The House Magazine? He said:
      "It's within the bounds of possibility that the Royal Commission may say this"—
      the Weatherill amendment—
      "has been working well—let's leave well alone.
      That would preserve continuity … Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished."
      Would the right hon. Lady be content to see stage 1 continue indefinitely? What assurances can she give the Committee that it will definitely end?
      Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is not asking two entirely contradictory questions. I shall deal with the first issue that he raised. He asked about an article—which I do not believe that I have seen—that appeared in Lord Weatherill's name. Lord Weatherill, like everyone else, will put his views to the royal commission, and the royal commission will make its deliberations and give its advice. We are some sufficient distance from that outcome not to need to reach a conclusion at this point as to what a response to such advice might be.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she has rather glided away from my hon. Friend's question. What is her opinion?
      Mrs. Beckett: We have made it quite plain that the Government wish to see the Bill that is now before the Committee on the statute book. In order to smooth the transition and to move more speedily to stage 2, we are prepared to consider favourably something such as the Weatherill proposal. However, it remains the Government's view that there should be no continuation of the right to sit and vote in another place on the grounds of heredity.
      That brings me to amendment No. 3, which would allow a small number of existing hereditary peers to remain as Members of the upper House. If the wish is to preserve those peers of first creation who are there on the grounds of their own achievements rather than those of their forebears, the Government have some sympathy with it—after all, that is why the life peers will remain. However, that is unnecessary because the Government have made it plain that we have already made such an offer to those hereditary peers. However, if the amendment is designed to preserve them as Members of the upper House by hereditary right, it is not acceptable to the Government. The whole point of the Bill is that it severs once and for all the link between hereditary peers and membership of the House of Lords.
      Several hon. Members—particularly the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—addressed their remarks to amendment No. 18. We do not dispute that some individuals who sit as hereditary peers have made valuable contributions to the work of the House of Lords. However, I reject—as I suspect many of them would—the apparent assertion last night by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) that their contributions are innately more valuable than those of life peers. I think that most hereditary peers would agree with me that the majority of the work of the House of Lords is carried out by the life peers—and that is not a criticism of hereditary peers.
      Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Lady is perfectly aware that that is not what I said. I said last night, and I reiterate now, that the contribution of hereditary peers is at least as valuable as that of life peers and I objected to the manner in which the Government were seeking to gag them.
      Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman did not intend to so impugn life peers, I am glad to have given him the opportunity to set the record straight. They will welcome that news.
      However valuable the contributions of individual hereditary peers may be, the fact is that that is not why they are Members of the upper House. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire sought to introduce various mechanisms and—perhaps incidentally—further delay in order to preserve a larger number of hereditary peers on the grounds of individual achievement. His amendment refers to those who have played a "significant role" but does not propose who should be the judge of that significance.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman overlooks the fact that there is nothing to prevent any political party or the appointments commission from nominating as a life peer any hereditary peer who is thought to have made such a contribution. However, we do not believe that that is for Ministers to regulate; neither is it a matter for this
      780
      Bill. I repeat that the removal of the hereditary right to sit and vote should come into effect at the end of this Session. We believe that that is sensible and that is why we ask the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which seek delay either for an arbitrary period or in order to introduce a specific date. That risks a disruptive rather than a straightforward transfer to the transitional House.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Beckett: Very briefly.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The key point that the right hon. Lady is almost addressing—I would be grateful if she would do so now—is that the Government are obviously thinking constructively about the 91 hereditary peers, provided that the amendment comes from the House of Lords and provided that the Government are not prevented from using the Parliament Acts. Will the Government think constructively about having a rather larger number than 91 on the same terms because there is a strong case for that?
      Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I doubt very much whether the Government will be prepared either to accept a further and arbitrary delay—as some of the amendments grouped with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment suggest—or to exempt a list of named peers from the abolition of hereditary rights.
      Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Before the right hon. Lady gave way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), she said that she had very little time. Mr. Martin, will you confirm that this is the Committee stage of the Bill, that it is not time limited and that the right hon. Lady has all the time in the world to answer all the points that were made during the debate?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct: it is the Committee stage.
      Mrs. Beckett: For the record, Mr. Martin, being mindful of the fact that the Committee had spent many hours considering this group of amendments, I thought that hon. Members might wish to move on to the other very interesting amendments tabled by Conservative Members.
      Before I leave my last point, I reiterate that, regardless of whether some extra peers are added later by way of an amendment in the House of Lords, it should be absolutely clear that they will sit as life peers. They will sit as individuals on the basis of a contribution that they are judged by their peers to have made. Their heirs will not inherit their seats, and the link between the right to sit in the House of Lords and the hereditary peerage will be broken.
      The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—who, I am glad to see, has been able to return to us from what I know is genuinely pressing business—asked me about new clause 12. He is entirely correct: we have had a good deal of legal advice about the matter. That advice is that

      781
      the steps do not in any way contravene the Act of Union. The spirit of the Act was that there should be equal treatment between peers of Scotland and others, and that is the effect of the Bill.
      I know that some have claimed that the provisions in the Act cannot be amended, but the Act has already been amended because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, it provided only for 16 of the peers of Scotland to sit, and in 1963 that was amended to allow them all to sit. That is the measure that is being repealed. The provision of the Act of Union that allows for equal treatment is being observed.
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Epping Forest made a number of accusations, among which was the accusation that, in not bringing what is not our proposal—or, indeed, that of the Conservative party—before this Committee for debate at this point, the Government were in some way acting to party advantage. I say—I hope she will think not unkindly—to the hon. Lady that that was a Freudian slip. If there is party advantage in the matters that we are debating today, it rests, and it has always rested, overwhelmingly with the Conservative party. It is hard to avoid the conclusion, listening to the debate as I have over recent hours, that Conservatives are seeking by hook or by crook to defend that advantage.
      The Bill may yet, particularly in the light of that attitude and that fight, need to be subject to the Parliament Acts. If it be so, and the Government hope that it will not be so, the Bill as presented should be the Bill that leaves this House.
      Mr. Evans: Is that a threat?
      Mrs. Beckett: That intervention trivialises this place. It was not a threat. The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have, rather foolishly in my view, accused the Government of blackmail in what we are doing. We are putting before the Committee the proposals that we want to see pass into law. That is not blackmail. That is carrying out the principle, the purpose and the proposals in our manifesto.
      If Opposition Members want to speak of blackmail, what would they call suggestions and indeed threats to use the powers of the House of Lords—what were the words?—and hooligan behaviour to disrupt utterly the Government's programme, opposing everything that the Government seek to do on health, education and crime at every step of the way? [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and hon. Members on his Front Bench did not say that, but it was said in the House of Lords by Members of the House of Lords who, as he well knows, have the power to make good that threat.
      The Government are not blackmailing anyone. We are making sure that we have the opportunity to put into effect in our legislation the proposals in our manifesto. It is simple and straightforward.
      Mr. Hawkins rose—
      Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. We have had many hours on the matter and all the points have been aired.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 326.

      Division No. 68]

      [6.33 pm

      AYES

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Johnson Smith,

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Key, Robert

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lansley, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lewis,Dr Julian(New Forest E)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lidington, David

      Brady, Graham

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Loughton, Tim

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Burns, Simon

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Malins, Humfrey

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Maples, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney Rt Hon sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Norman, Archie

      Colvin, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Page, Richard

      Cran, James

      Paice, James

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Paterson, Owen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Day, Stephen

      Prior, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Randall, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Evans, Nigel

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Faber, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fallon, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Flight, Howard

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Spring, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Streeter, Gary

      Gale, Roger

      Syms, Robert

      Garnier, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Gibb, Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Townend, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Trend, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Walter, Robert

      Green, Damian

      Wardle, Charles

      Greenway, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Grieve, Dominic

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Wilkinson, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Willetts, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Wilshire, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Hayes, John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Heald, Oliver

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Horam, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      Jenkin, Bernard

      783

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davidson, Ian

      Allan, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dawson, Hilton

      Austin, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Baker, Norman

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ballard, Jackie

      Dobbin, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bayley, Hugh

      Doran, Frank

      Beard, Nigel

      Dowd, Jim

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Drew, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Berry, Roger

      Edwards, Huw

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Borrow, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fisher, Mark

      Brake, Torn

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Breed, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Follett, Barbara

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burnett, John

      Gapes, Mike

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Cann, Jamie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Casale, Roger

      Gorrie, Donald

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harvey, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Connarty, Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbett, Robin

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cotter, Brian

      Hill, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cox, Tom

      Hoey, Kate

      Cranston, Ross

      Home Robertson, John

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hope, Phil

      Cummings, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      (Copeland)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwaik N)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Darvill, Keith

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hutton, John

      784

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jamieson, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Plaskitt, James

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      Keetch, Paul

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Giles

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rendel, David

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rogers, Allan

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Linton, Martin

      Rowlands, Ted

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lock, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAllion, John

      Salter, Martin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sanders, Adrian

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McLeish, Henry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      McWalter, Tony

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Martlew, Eric

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Maxton, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stott, Roger

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moore, Michael

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stringer, Graham

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morley, Elliot

      Swinney, John

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Mullin, Chris

      (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      O'Hara,Eddie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      785

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Watts, David

      Timms, Stephen

      White, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Willis, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Wills, Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Winnick, David

      Truswell, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverht'ton SE)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Vaz, Keith

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.

      Wareing, Robert N

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 6, at end add
      'or shall in future be appointed a member of the House of Lords by the exercise of patronage'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 6, at end add
      'or shall in future be appointed a member of the House of Lords by the exercise of patronage, by virtue of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, by virtue of the Life Peerages Act 1958 or by virtue of being a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England'.
      No. 14, in page 1, line 6, at end add—
      '(2) In this Act "the exercise of patronage" means on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown.'.
      New clause 3—Appointments Commission (No. 1)—

      '(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

      (2) The Appointments Commission may nominate members to serve as members of the House of Lords, provided that no such person represents a registered political party.

      (3) A registered political party shall be entitled to nominate one member of the Appointments Commission.

      (4) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall nominate members of the Appointments Commission who represent no registered political party.

      (5) There shall be more members of the Appointments Commission nominated under subsection (4) than nominated under subsection (3).

      (6) For the purposes of this section, a registered political party is one registered under the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.'.

      New clause 4—Appointments Commission (No. 2)—

      '(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

      (2) The Appointments Commission may nominate members to serve as members of the House of Lords, provided that no such person represents a registered political party.

      (3) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall nominate members of the Appointments Commission.

      (4) No member of the Appointments Commission shall represent a registered political party.

      (5) For the purposes of this section, a registered political party is one registered under the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.'.

      New clause 5—Appointments Commission (No. 3)—

      '(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission to advise on the proportion of Members of the House of Lords who represent each registered political party and to nominate persons to serve as members of the House of Lords who represent no registered political party.

      786

      (2) When advising on the proportion of members of the House of Lords who represent each registered political party, the Appointments Commission shall adopt the following procedure:

      (a) For each registered political party, the number of votes received by that party at the last general election shall be divided by the number of members of the House of Lords who represent that party.

      (b) The number of electors who cast no vote at the last general election shall be divided by the number of members of the House of Lords who represent no registered political party.

      (3) If the figure calculated under subsection (2)(b) is less than all of the figures calculated under subsection (2)(a), the Appointments Commission shall recommend that the party (or one of the parties) with the highest figure calculated under subsection (2)(a) may nominate a person to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

      (4) If the figure calculated under subsection (2)(b) is equal to or greater than all of the figures calculated under subsection (2)(a), the Appointments Commission shall recommend the nomination of a person who represents no registered political party.

      (5) Each registered political party shall be entitled to nominate one member of the Appointments Commission.

      (6) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall nominate members of the Appointments Commission who represent no registered political party.

      (7) There shall be more members of the Appointments Commission nominated under subsection (6) than nominated under subsection (5).

      (8) For the purposes of this section, a registered political party is one registered under the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.'.

      New clause 17—Establishment and function of Appointments Commission—

      '(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission

      (2) The function of the Commission shall be to make recommendations to Her Majesty for the creation of life peerages; and no life peerage shall be created except in pursuance of such a recommendation.

      (3) Before recommending to Her Majesty that a life peerage be conferred upon a person who is a member of a registered political party, the Commission shall consult the leader of that party, but shall be under no obligation to recommend any person nominated by the leader.'.

      New clause 20—Creation of life peerages—

      '(1) During the period while this Act remains in force, recommendations by the Appointments Commission to Her Majesty for the creation of life peerages shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

      (2) Not more than twenty two recommendations shall be made during any period of one year.

      (3) Not more than seventeen of the recommendations referred to in subsection (2) shall be for the conferment of a life peerage on a person who is a member of a registered political party; and such recommendations shall be made in proportion to the respective numbers of votes cast for registered political parties at the previous General Election.

      (4) This section does not apply to peerages conferred under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or to peerages conferred by law and custom on archbishops and bishops of the Church of England.'.

      Amendment No. 11, in title, line 2, after 'about', insert
      'appointments to the House of Lords and'.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The amendment, which stands in my name and those of several hon. Members, would curtail the use and the endowment of patronage in the appointment of Members of the House of Lords and, by parity of reasoning, thereafter any Chamber that replaces the House of Lords in due course.

      787
      Like the Bill, the amendment is poetically simple. Like the Bill, it is brief, but perfectly formed. Like the Bill, it is modest in its aims and in its aspirations. Also, it is entirely consistent with the aims of the Bill—so consistent that it has been a matter of disappointment to me and those who tabled the amendment that the Government have not felt able to adopt it in this otherwise outstanding legislation.
      To understand why I say that the amendment is consistent with the aims of the Bill, it is necessary to analyse the true iniquity of the hereditary principle. In Committee, we have spent considerable time debating those iniquities. Primary among them is the obvious iniquity of power being delivered by inheritance. We have said on many occasions that, at the last knocking of the 20th century, it is entirely appropriate that we should, as a matter of urgency, set about creating a genetically modified, or at least a genetically nullified, second Chamber.
      All those arguments ignore the true vice of the hereditary principle—deferred patronage. Not one person who sits in the House of Lords by reason of the hereditary principle did not, at some stage in his family history, owe that fact to either the patronage of politicians or the largesse of kings.
      I have no hesitation in saying that history dictates to us that patronage is the curse and the blight of the British political system, and has been for 700 years. The way in which that patronage has been exercised over 700 years has always tended to corrupt for the simplest of all possible reasons: it is transparently the personal donation of favour. The personal donation of favour will always carry with it the reciprocal responsibility that should be aired, and reciprocal responsibilities are the handmaiden of corruption. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, for whom I have boundless respect, would find it difficult to disagree with those remarks.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that Sir Winston Churchill was corrupted by the award of the honour of a knighthood for services to our country?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman is one of the great mediaevalists in the Chamber, and one of the very few who has stood fast by the hereditary principle. I admire him enormously for that, but he has failed to listen to what I said. I said that patronage always tends to corrupt. Many people may avoid corruption, but the tendency to corrupt in the body politic is everything. I hope that that is a consistent and reasonable answer to the hon. Gentleman's interesting intervention
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Do the hon. and learned Gentleman's objections to the hereditary principle extend to the monarchy?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Yes. I have no hesitation in saying that I am a republican, and have been for as long as I can remember. I am perfectly happy to debate that issue with the hon. Gentleman at any time and in a more
      788
      convenient place. The two issues are not unrelated. Many republicans in the House will find it easy to support the terms of the Bill and the amendment.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I think that, at this rate, my speech will take a long time. Yes, of course I shall give way.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall try not to hold up the hon. and learned Gentleman for long. Do the objections about hereditary peerages that he quite sincerely makes apply also to life peerages? Who does he think should sit in the second Chamber? Is he proposing an elected senate, or nothing at all?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that that is the kernel, the gravamen and the purpose of the amendment. Briefly, the answer to his first question is yes, and the answer to his last question is no. I shall come back to those issues if I may.
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman in full flow, but I hope that that is the end of that particular exchange. We must not have a Second Reading debate now: we must deal with the amendment.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I accept your rebuke, Sir Alan, on my own behalf and on behalf of the lion. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
      We should examine the principle and the historical vice of patronage—while, of course, staying well within the terms of the amendment. Those who, throughout history, have criticised and been in the front of voicing dissent about the use and the endowment of patronage have always found themselves in some considerable danger. If we make our dissent clear now in the liberal world that we inhabit, the only danger that we face is that we irritate our Whips. Terrible though that may be, it is a great deal better than being burnt.
      It is worth recording that Henry VIII invented the unique torture of being boiled alive for anyone who dissented from the use of the king's patronage or his use of the prerogative to appoint whom he so wished, such as Cranmer. It has occurred to me—staying well within the parameters of the amendments, Sir Alan—that, had I made these or other observations at the time of Cardinal Wolsey, I would have been put on the barbecue a long time ago.
      The Chairman: Order. It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that those powers are not available to the Chair.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is why I provoked you, Sir Alan. I gather some comfort from the fact that, were such torture ever to be visited on me, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would be on a nearby bonfire.
      The true vice that underpins and underlines the amendment is not merely the principle of appointment by patronage to the House of Lords or to any such House that

      789
      should replace it: there is a far worse evil. Governments of all shades and of all political persuasions have, since 1974, admirably shown that unelected peers can be placed in the House of Lords by the use of patronage, and ere their bottoms have hardly touched the red leather of the House of Lords, they are imported straight into the corridors of power and of government.
      All parties of all shades of political opinion have made such appointments—the Labour party is as guilty as the Conservatives, if not more so. Since 1974, 140 unelected appointments have been made to the heart of government from the House of Lords. Those people were often elevated to the House of Lords for the express purpose of placing them immediately in the centre of government.
      Not for those gifted and gilded people is the impertinence and inconvenience of election. Not for them, as for all hon. Members of this House, is the impertinence and inconvenience of the drudgery of tramping up more and more steps, of listening endlessly to our electors and our electorate, and of proselytising for our Government or for the Opposition whom we hope will replace the then Government. Not for them is the problem of listening to the lamentations of the poor, the sick and the disabled time after time, week after week in our surgeries and during our election campaigns.
      Mr. David Winnick: I do not accept patronage, but it is interesting that Ministers are subject to patronage, and, for all I know, even Speakers and Deputy Speakers are chosen by patronage. What about my hon. and learned Friend's own profession as a lawyer? Do we elect judges and Queen's counsel? The barristers who apply to be QCs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Such appointments are all forms of patronage.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I could not agree more. I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that point. I do not want to stray outside the bounds of the amendment—I see the expression on your face, Sir Alan. I am being tempted, but I shall not stray from the point, save to say that if my hon. Friend had listened to the many debates in which I have been involved on how judges and QCs should be appointed, he would know that I am as against the powers and the use of patronage in those circumstances as I am in this case. I have always regarded the vice of patronage as a particularly British vice, and we now finally have the opportunity to deal with it.
      Mr. Winnick: Elect the judges.
      7 pm
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: It is difficult for me to hear my hon. Friend, so if he does not mind I shall continue with my speech.
      Opposition Members have referred to the high quality of Members of the House of Lords, not only the hereditary peers who not infrequently make their contribution but the life peers. I endorse what they have said. I also endorse what was said by the Leader of the House, both during today's debate and on Second Reading, when certain caddish imputations were made against the Leader of the House of Lords on the basis of her lineage. My right hon. Friend, immediately and spiritedly, leapt to her defence, pointing out that she is a woman of outstanding intellect
      790
      and ability. Let me add that, as well as possessing a luminous intellect and an immense political capacity, the Leader of the House of Lords has the great attributes of grace and wit.
      After that uncharacteristic fawning, let me also say that the Leader of the House of Lords has no place in Government. I have not the slightest doubt that, if she were elected to the House of Commons, she would be an adornment to Government, and I would be the first to say so; but she has not been.
      Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I return my hon. and learned Friend to the subject of his amendment? Amendment No. 14 states simply—my hon. and learned Friend has spoken of the need to be short, concise and simple—
      "In this Act 'the exercise of patronage' means on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown."
      If the amendment were passed, the Government could not nominate anyone to the House of Lords, but, as I read it, the Leader of the Opposition or the other political parties could do so. Why does my hon. and learned Friend seek to punish only the Labour party and the Government?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: If my hon. Friend has not yet considered a career in the Cratchit area of the law, he should do so at once.
      All appointments to the House of Lords are made on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown. That is the prerogative of Ministers, although as a matter of convention they take account of recommendations made by the Opposition. However, I should be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the possibility of a small technical amendment, in the spirit of statutory constructiveness. I always enjoy that, and I suspect that my hon. Friend understands full well what I was saying.
      Two counter-arguments may well be raised against what strikes me—and, I hope, many others on both sides of this elected Chamber—as a transparently incontrovertible argument. The first is that the legitimacy of the electoral principle, which is fundamental to all my political beliefs, has been eroded by the power of the party political machine. Because the party political machine has so much power, it may be argued that a second Chamber consisting of nominated Members who have undergone, say, the Nolan tests is necessary to combat that power. My bisyllabic answer to that is "Rubbish". The party machine is only as powerful as we wish it to be: we can control our own party machines, and should not necessarily lie down in front of them.
      In any event, although we all stand in the middle of the party machines, the fact that I am a member of the Labour party and have been for 30 years is simply a shorthand way of telling my electorate in the clearest terms what I believe, and have believed fundamentally for all that time. I need not stand on their doorsteps and tell them that I believe in the national minimum wage, that I believe in devolution or that I believe fundamentally in the precepts of the welfare state, because all that is implicit in the fact that I am a member of the Labour party and stand on that ticket. I must, however, persuade them that I will be industrious, and that I have the ability to listen to their lamentations. If I fail, I will fail the test of the electorate—and that happens.

      791
      It is sometimes said that it is axiomatic, and part of a well-known rubric, that in certain areas a donkey could be elected. In certain areas a donkey standing either for Labour or the Conservatives could indeed be elected, but in many it could not. I suspect that 50 or 60 former Conservative Members who lost their seats after the coming of the grim reaper in 1997 are saying, "I lost by only a few hundred votes. I might not have lost if I had been a better constituency Member." Others may be saying, "I won by only a few hundred votes. Thank God I was as diligent and conscientious as I was." The electoral principle is still fundamental to all that we do in this Chamber.
      The second counter-argument, which the Leader of the House may raise, is that in the White Paper, although not in any statutory enactment, there is an undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister to divest himself voluntarily of certain of the powers of patronage that he holds, and to invest them in a commission. The commission will, of course, be appointed by him. It will deal with Cross Benchers, and the Prime Minister will aim for rough parity between the parties. That, incidentally, will mean the creation of some 95 Labour peers. When those 95 are there, to redress the balance in relation to the 90-odd hereditary peers who will remain when the rotten peg is kicked away—as it will be in due course—we shall have a built-in majority of 90-odd Labour peers. The next time—pray God, in many millennia—the Conservative party, or some other party, takes power, it too will redress the balance, and the whole wretched business will start again.
      The time has come for us to take control of our elected destiny, and the Bill can enable us to do so. The amendment can undoubtedly be supported by those who believe in a wholly elected Chamber—of whom there are many—and by unicameralists like me. As I said the other day, it distresses me more than I can say to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House say that we need a House of Lords to act as a check on the Executive. We are the check on the Executive, and always should be. People say that we have not the time to be a check on the Executive, because of the overwhelming amount of legislation. That argument takes no account of the fact that devolution will take much of the burden from us, and the fact that the Executive should bear the burden of serving legislation to us in a form, and with an agenda, with which we can deal properly over a parliamentary Session, rather than delivering it to us in its present form.
      Mr. Shepherd: If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, he said that the amendment could be supported by unicameralists and those who believed in an elected House. What about the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, relating to the Law Lords? What about the bishops? The amendment does not remove them, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not commented on that aspect.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I can only say that, in the overall sweep of the proposed measures, I have left the bishops behind. I have discussed the Law Lords with the hon. Gentleman, and I have no quarrel with the
      792
      concept of their sitting in a second Chamber. As for the bishops, I would be minded to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      Mr. Phil Hope: The more I listen to the debate and the interventions from various parts of the Chamber, the more it seems that my hon. and learned Friend is plunging us into a debate on patronage in uncharted waters. Surely he recognises that the arrangements for a transitional House and for a royal commission that will operate according to a strict timetable and which will deal with those issues directly and comprehensively, offers a far better approach than the amendments.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That intervention distresses me a little. I anticipated that someone would say, "That is the business of a royal commission. Whether we will be saddled with patronage into the next millennium is a matter for a royal commission of the great and good." We have seen them and they are the great and good, I suppose. I suspect that nothing very radical will come out of the royal commission; in fact, I would wager quite a lot of money that nothing radical will come out of it. The idea that the House of Commons does not understand the elementary principle of patronage and must therefore ask a royal commission of the great and good to tell us whether we should continue with legislation that would allow a second Chamber to be appointed by the patronage of politicians is an abnegation of our responsibility.
      Mr. Hope: Surely the whole point about the royal commission is that the report will come back to a Joint Committee of both Houses and will be decided on by the House of Commons. My hon. and learned Friend's argument is completely defeated by the point that he has just made.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: There is a touching faith in royal commissions and in Joint Committees of the Houses of Parliament, but one of the problems with the royal commission is that its remit is far too wide. It has not been asked to tell us how to do something that we want to do; it has been asked what we should do.
      There is no problem with the House of Commons saying to a royal commission, "You can go away and tell us by comparative studies"—and with a large and very expensive secretariat—"what the options are," but the two options that we are—
      The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman to embroider his arguments to make his case, but he has now embroidered far enough. This is not a general debate about patronage. It is specifically about whether patronage should be exercised in particular circumstances. He must come back to the narrow confines of his amendment.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I accept that stricture entirely.
      I finish with a unicameralist point, which falls strictly within the ambit of patronage and raises the question of whether we should press the amendment. It is as well that we realise in the House of Commons that continually clinging to the existence of a House of Lords, whatever the means by which it is elected—whether it be through patronage, whether people are pushed or driven in from

      793
      the streets, or whether they are appointed by lottery—is an admission that it is an alibi for our shortcomings. For that reason, I have moved the amendment and will listen with interest to what the Government have to say.
      Mr. Tyrie: I have much sympathy with what I have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I particularly agree that there does not seem to be any need for the royal commission to take a look at patronage. The terms of my new clauses are much narrower and more closely confined than the hon. and learned Gentleman's sweeping effort to attack patronage.
      I have tabled two new clauses. The first, new clause 17, is designed to remove the direct power of patronage from the Prime Minister to appoint his people to the House of Lords. Its intention is to reduce the extent to which appointments, or the promise of appointments, to the Lords can be used as a tool of control. It is intended to increase the likelihood that appointments will be made on the ground of someone's capacity to play a constitutional role in the Lords, rather than merely as a means of bestowing an honour.
      The main function of a second Chamber should not be to serve as some elaborate lollipop for superannuated commoners, or friends or cronies of the Prime Minister of the day. It should be a place that is not just capable of exercising some constitutional check on the Executive, but which is keen to do so. Therefore, new clause 17 gives absolute discretion to the Appointments Commission to make recommendations to the Prime Minister.
      I may be a little optimistic, but my impression is that the White Paper half agrees with that approach. It reads on page 45:
      "There would be a case for considering an enhanced role in overseeing this process"—
      pol itic al appointments—
      "for the Appointments Commission, if it continued to function",
      that is, after the interim period.
      Without my new clause, most patronage powers will still be in the hands of the Prime Minister, even after the Bill is passed. With it, at least some of those powers with respect to the Lords will be at one remove. He will, of course, appoint the appointees, which is why I have tabled new clause 20.
      7.15 p.m
      New clause 20 takes the powers of new clause 17 further. It limits the number of appointments that can be made in absolute terms in any one year. Even if a Prime Minister succeeds in exercising disproportionate influence over the Appointments Commission, the new clause will still restrict his power of patronage. It should eliminate the process of packing the Lords.
      Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: I will in a moment.
      The numbers set out in new clause 20 may look odd at first, but they are straightforward. Subsection (2) limits the overall number of appointments in any one year to 22. That figure is the average annual number of appointments
      794
      to the House of Lords since 1958, when life peerages were introduced. Under subsection (3), only 17 of those would be permitted to be explicitly party political appointments.
      At the moment, 25 per cent. of surviving peers created since 1958 are Cross Benchers and 75 per cent. have stated party political affiliations. I have applied the same 75:25 ratio in a rough and ready way to the figure 22 to arrive at 17. It comes out at 16.5; rounded up, it is 17. That is where the figures 22 and 17 come from.
      Under subsection (3), political appointments would have to be made in proportion to the votes cast for each party at the last general election.
      Dr. Starkey rose—
      Mr. Linton rose—
      Mr. Tyrie: I will give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) first.
      Dr. Starkey: It was precisely that point that I wanted to take up. Has the hon. Gentleman done a mathematical model of how his proposals would work out? I confess that I have not, but it seems that, with the creation of 17 life peerages a year, it would take an unconscionable time for us to achieve anything near parity between the Labour party and the Conservative party. Has he been so good as to create the background computer model so that we know how many years the process will take?
      Mr. Tyrie: I do not agree that that is the right approach to achieve proportionality. My new clause is not targeted at achieving that objective, but may I suggest another way to achieve proportionality, if that is what the hon. Lady so desires? We might, for example, introduce a retirement age at 75. A disproportionate number of elderly life peers are Conservative. I think that she will find, if she looks, that a retirement age of 75 would deliver exact proportionality between Labour and Conservative life peers.
      Addressing that issue is not the purpose of the new clause; indeed, I would be straying from my intention if I did so. The purpose of the new clause is broadly the same as that of the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
      Mr. Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: I will, but then I must get on.
      Mr. Linton: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman's sights are set on the target of patronage, but would not the consequence of the new clause be to retain for ever the Conservative party's stranglehold on the House of Lords?
      Mr. Tyrie: I have just tried to answer that point by pointing out that it will do no such thing. That is contingent on whatever other changes are desired. That is not the purpose of the new clause. I have already suggested one alternative route that I considered taking, which I have discussed with the Clerks; I may yet table an amendment as a means of moving in that direction.

      795
      Subsection (3) of new clause 20 would provide that political appointments should be roughly proportional to the votes cast at the previous general election. Applying that principle—bearing in mind the run of Conservative victories—should imply not a House of exact proportionality but one that would inevitably, because of the time lags involved, leave rather more Conservative peers in the upper House than the number of Labour peers there are now. If Labour succeeded in winning a string of general elections, the position would be reversed. Appointment by strict proportionality does not imply a House that is always in exact balance.
      On that I pray in aid of my subsection the Labour party manifesto, which reads:
      "Our objective will be to ensure … party appointees … more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast in the previous General Election."
      Therefore, by implication, Labour is accepting the principle that numbers in the upper House should not always—because of the possibility of a string of general election victories by one party—be exactly even.
      I shall not deal with the details of subsection (4) save to say that it would exclude bishops and judges from the provisions of the new clause.
      I think that the practicality of my new clauses deserves a moment or two of consideration. The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 gives us some hope that the new clauses could be practical amendments and provides, for the first time, clear definitions of what constitutes party political affiliation. All parties are currently in the process of creating formal registration systems. Although I did not consider it worth adding to the new clauses to deal with the matter, I think that a sensible approach to it would be that, when an applicant is being considered for a peerage by the Appointments Commission, he or she should be required to sign a declaration stating whether he or she had any party political affiliation.
      The case for addressing the patronage issue has already been made eloquently today. However, I should like to address the issue in a different—perhaps less emotional, or less trenchant—manner than that of the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
      Patronage has been a problem in Lords reform for very many years—going back well before the Life Peerages Act 1958. Many of those who considered the issues concluded that the power of patronage is a severe drawback, if not a complete bar, to the likelihood of ever enabling a fully appointed upper House to work effectively.
      It is important to bear in mind that the Lords will become a fully appointed House, unless the Weatherill amendment is passed. It is worth recalling the conclusions of several of those who have given thought to the issue in the past. Winston Churchill, for example, in a 1925 memorandum to a Cabinet Committee—which, as it happens, was a Conservative one which was working up proposals for a partly elected upper House—wrote:
      "Once a chasm has been cut between past and present mere nomination"—
      of peers—
      " … will be a trumpery foundation. The nominated senators, or whatever they were called, would owe their position solely to the favour of a party leader."
      796
      Although that was Churchill's view with a Conservative hat on, that was also his view when he was a Liberal. As early as 1907, in a political journal, he argued:
      "Abruptly we may dismiss all those ingenious plans … for creating an august senate of unrepresentative persons."
      As it happens, for most of the interwar period, Churchill wanted an elected upper House. As he said:
      "If we are to leave the venerable if somewhat crumbled rock on which the House of Lords now stands there is no safe foothold until we come to an elected chamber."
      I think that the reform that we are considering will find itself moving inexorably and inevitably in that direction.
      Concern about the power of patronage in an appointed House was one of the reasons why Churchill concluded that an elected Chamber would eventually be the end point of any reform, and why he ended up supporting one.
      Worries about the power of patronage have, of course, pursued more recent reformers. The original reform proposals thought up in 1958, which led to life peerages, were much more sophisticated than the ones that finally ended up on the statute book. The Conservative committee that was thinking through those proposals originally argued that, in the long run, there should be a ceiling on the number of peers serving in the upper House. Any ceiling inevitably means that the annual number of appointments becomes limited to vacancies by death.
      Richard Crossman was one of the very few serious Labour thinkers on those issues—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) also is a distinguished member of that group. Richard Crossman's 1968 proposals also contained a de facto limit on patronage. I shall not describe all the details of those proposals, as I am sure that the Committee would find it incredibly boring if I were to do so.
      The Home report, which was produced by the Conservative party in the 1970s, also proposed capping the size of the House of Lords, at about 400. That would have limited patronage in much the same way as the 1958 proposals.
      I quite deeply regret that a belt-and-braces approach—such as I am proposing—to the restriction of patronage is required. However, clearly, the worst fears of some of those who had concerns earlier in the century about the relationship between an entirely appointed House and patronage are now being realised.
      No one would suggest that, over the years, all the abuses have been on one side. Historically, perhaps Liberal abuses of the power of patronage towards the beginning of the century are the most salient and the most memorable. But the problem has recently turned into a crisis, as every conceivable convention on the appointment of peers is being overridden by the current, Labour Government. I shall confine myself to only two such breaches of precedent.
      The first is that the current Prime Minister is appointing a higher proportion of Labour peers, as against other parties, than ever before. More than 50 per cent. of his appointees take the Labour Whip. By convention, since 1958, the percentage has never risen above 50 per cent. Since 1958, Callaghan, Wilson and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—all Prime Ministers—kept the percentage below 50 per cent.; not once has it risen above 50 per cent. Now, under the current Prime Minister, it is rising above 50 per cent.

      797
      The second precedent—and its breach is more serious—goes back hundreds of years. Packing the Lords has always been regarded as unconstitutional. On all previous occasions when swamping or packing was considered, it was justified on only one ground: the need to avoid gridlock between the two Houses. That held true in the very first case that I know of—in 1713, to pass the treaty of Utrecht—as it did during passage of the great Reform Act 1832, when, rather as with the treaty of Utrecht, the threat was to create a dozen or 15 peers. In 1911, the threat was to create about 100 peers, or possibly even 200 peers, to pass the Parliament Act 1911 and to end the gridlock.
      The 1911 Act—with its limitation on the power of delay, followed by the further limitation, in 1949—removed the justification of packing the upper House to deal with gridlock, as it removed that gridlock.
      The plain fact is that—right now—the Prime Minister is packing the Lords, in breach of a centuries-old parliamentary convention.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I should not like to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly selective in his rendition of history, but the reality is that—whatever one thinks about the creation of large numbers of life peers—over a number of years, previous Prime Ministers' refusal to appoint Labour peers created the disastrous imbalance. If those who support the hon. Gentleman's amendments had been prepared to put pressure on the previous Conservative Prime Minister, we might not be facing the current situation.
      Mr. Tyrie: I do not have the figures to hand. For a time in the 1970s, of course, Labour did not make nominations to the upper House. Had it done so, those nominations would have become appointments. A very long-standing convention holds that some Opposition nominations for peerages should be accepted. As I said, there has always been an acceptance of the need for balance, which requires that less than 50 per cent. of appointments by any Prime Minister should be for his own party.
      Historically, we have had an average of 22 peers appointed a year. We now have an average of 66—three times the previous annual rate. If that is not packing, I do not know what is.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. McWalter: Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that every Conservative Prime Minister finds the upper House already packed in his favour and any Labour Prime Minister is trying only to mitigate the damage?
      Mr. Tyrie: Several hon. Members have referred to the effect that my amendment would have on the balance. I have tried to explain that it is not designed to deal with that. I am trying to deal with the exercise of patronage by the Prime Minister to control his party.
      Mr. Tony Benn: The hon. Gentleman is giving us a scholarly account and a detailed remedy. Has it occurred to him that there is an alternative to the elaborate schemes of percentages and numbers? Let the people decide who is in the House of Lords—which I hope would
      798
      not be called that—just as happens for the House of Commons. I was in the House in the early 1950s when successive Colonial Secretaries came forward with proposals for colonial administrations. They sounded exactly like the hon. Gentleman's proposal, giving a certain number to the Governor, a certain number to the white community, a certain number to the black community and so on. Democracy has a refreshing simplicity and acceptance. The hon. Gentleman should consider it when he gives further thought to the issue.
      Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I am not supposed to advertise in the Chamber, but I commend to him my paper on the subject. I came out in favour of an elected upper House some time ago. That remains my view, just as it has been the view of a large number of Conservative thinkers throughout the century, including Curzon, Churchill, F E Smith, Lord Home and Lord Carrington. I am not alone.
      For much of this century, the Labour party has been in favour of unicameralism, as is the hon. and learned Member for Medway. Three times this century it has been part of Labour manifestos. I realise that I am being dragged into a digression, but it is important to bear in mind that the great divide in the Chamber on the issue—some divides cut across parties—is between the unicameralists and the bicameralists. The majority of bicameralists have been Conservatives. Unicameralism has always flourished better among Labour Members.
      I shall conclude my comments on the scale of the patronage that we are talking about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is interesting to hear that Labour Members feel that it would be a good idea for the Prime Minister to hang on to the patronage that he is exercising and abusing.
      The figure of 66 new peers a year excludes several peerages that have been given to those who are registered as having given large donations to the Labour party but have decided to sit on the Cross Benches. That figure of 66 and my points about party balance understate the real situation. The Prime Minister is clearly abusing his powers of patronage, as they have been exercised by all previous Prime Ministers. I regret that the customs that had built up around appointments to the Lords have been so flagrantly abused and ignored. I regret that my amendments have become necessary, but they have and I urge the Committee to support them.
      Mr. Benn: These debates have been among the most interesting ever. An understanding of our constitution and the House that is not normally available to us has emerged from our exchanges. I listened to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) with great interest. The colonial parallel came readily to mind.
      We boast of democracy, but, when I was born, women were not trusted with the vote until they were 30. We have had a Parliament for 700 years, but only in my lifetime has the principle of universal adult suffrage been accepted. I do not believe that democracy is as deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of parliamentarians as some hon. Members believe.
      Mr. Wells: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to reflect on those colonial constitutions?
      The Chairman: Order. I do not think that any such invitation should be proffered and it should certainly not be accepted.
      Mr. Benn: I could refer the hon. Gentleman to some of my writings on the subject, but I shall not detain the Committee.
      These debates have clarified the position. The Government have no policy for a second Chamber. The Opposition have no policy for a second Chamber. I am not making a party point. This is a more serious point—nobody wants to change the House of Lords except to alter the political balance. The Conservatives are not as committed to the hereditary system as they make out. When I was 11, they got rid of a king because he wanted to marry Mrs. Simpson. If they had been committed to the hereditary system, they would have stuck with him through thick and thin. The Conservatives have done well out of the current system, so they want to hang on to it. Now that the Labour party has got to power, it sees the benefits of patronage.
      Some people think that I am cynical, but I believe that there will never be a second stage. When the new Chamber is set up, it will have the legitimacy of everyone having been freshly appointed. Even the hereditary peers will just have been made life peers by the Prime Minister. No Labour Cabinet will go to them a year later and say, "By the way, we are slaughtering you and introducing a new system."
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) shrewdly pointed out that we want to get our legislation through. The problems that we would have had if we had tried this two years ago during our first year's legislative programme will apply next time as well. In a couple of years, when the royal commission and the Select Committee have reported, how many Labour Members will want to go over the issue again when it could endanger the rest of our legislation because the new Lords will not want the changes?
      I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who made a classic parliamentary speech. We are planning to set up a second Chamber appointed by eight men and one woman—the Prime Ministers who have been in power since the Life Peerages Act 1958. Three of them are dead, so we are setting up a Chamber appointed by five men and one woman, claiming that it is better than what we have. It is not better than what we have. What we have is rotten, but we shall be entrenching patronage.
      How does the Prime Minister of the day get his patronage? He harnesses the powers of the Crown. The possibility of other people creating peerages has been raised, but I am afraid that the fount of honour has only one tap—the Prime Minister. Nobody else can undo the fount of honour. The Labour Prime Minister—a socialist Prime Minister—is turning on the tap of royal patronage, allegedly to produce a better House. He will produce a House stuffed with people who have earned his approval—the largest number—or that of some other Prime Minister.
      800
      The hereditary system is unacceptable. I have always believed that we should be allowed to elect our Head of State. That point is not relevant or in order, but it anticipates a possible question. I do not say that with any hostility to anyone who holds hereditary office, because they cannot be blamed for that. If someone has a hereditary job, it is not his fault. When Harold Wilson rather foolishly attacked the 14th Earl of Home, Lord Home replied very wittily, "I presume that he is the 14th Mr. Wilson." That very clever response put Harold down in a way that did not always happen. It has nothing to do with heredity. With the balance of power that exists in the House of Lords, Labour Governments get four years and Conservative Governments get five—because the delay of a year is a veto when it comes to the fifth year.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk spoke with feeling about getting Bills through. I sat in many legislative committees in the Cabinet in which the party's leader in the House of Lords had to warn the Cabinet that a Bill would be delayed in the Lords. Bills are killed before they start because of the huge majority in the Lords.
      As I have made clear, I am in favour of an elected House. We do not need the complexity suggested by the hon. Member for Chichester, who is skilled in history and knowledge. If every European constituency elected one man and one woman within the existing boundaries, we could have a second Chamber by 1 October. If we passed the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, that would take over from the second Chamber. The idea has such simplicity that I am sure it will scare some people.
      Mr. Tyrie: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is much likelihood of securing a largely elected House from his own party?
      Mr. Benn: This debate has brought the House of Commons back into existence, as people begin to realise that patronage applies not only in the House of Lords, but in this House. After all, the Leader of the Opposition summarily sacked his party's leader in the House of Lords because he disagreed with him. Certain penalties may be incurred in my party if one steps out of line. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is having a little trouble because patronage is being extended in terms of the mayor of London. The debate has brought the Commons out of hiding. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway said with passion, we should have the right to decide and not be told what to do.
      Mr. McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us may be unhappy with his suggestion, on the ground that it seems to set up a conflicting mandate—that is, it equals powers? Some of us are not of the view that a relationship similar to that between the United States Congress and Senate would be a real development, and we want to see some other way of entrenching our democracy.
      Mr. Benn: I understand my hon. Friend's position, but the constitution of this country is loaded with conflicting jurisdictions, the biggest one of which is the Commission in Brussels, which can repeal our legislation without it ever coming to the House of Commons. Local government clashes with national government, and the

      801
      Greater London council clashed with Mrs. Thatcher. Arguments may develop between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the mayor of London and this House. There are more nuclear weapons in this country governed by the President of the United States—who is answerable to the Senate—than there are weapons of our own. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too tracked into the idea that there must be only one centre of power. The real centre of power is Crown power, which never comes to us at all. We could go to war without ever asking the House of Commons—and we do.
      The best way is to have a small, elected second Chamber, using every European constituency, with one man and one woman for each. We would have a small Chamber representing England, Scotland, Wales and so on, and at the critical moment when the Bill was passed—with the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway—responsibility would be transferred. That is my conviction. I do not know whether we will do that. If we do not, it will be because neither Front Bench wants to lose the patronage that the present system and the new system give.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned about the patronage being exercised by the Labour Prime Minister. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said that we have the power to control the Executive. We are a small number on the Opposition Benches. There are a large number of Labour Members of Parliament in whose hands lies the power to control the Executive. If the right hon. Gentleman could persuade them that the Prime Minister was wrong in his excessive abuse of patronage, something might be done.
      Mr. Benn: Patronage is an abuse, whoever has it. I do not want the debate to deteriorate into a silly exchange over different Prime Ministers and how many peers they have made. The existence of the power to put someone into Parliament without their being elected is an abuse of democracy. That is my conviction. It is quite straightforward; I am not attacking anyone who uses it. As I said to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), patronage is not just about the people who get it, but about those who hope for it. Every Prime Minister is surrounded by hangers-on who hope that, if they are nice to him, they will get a peerage.
      I have never forgotten that, on the day Harold Wilson resigned, I went through the Lobby with him. Everyone in the Chamber must have been through the Lobby with the Prime Minister, and there are always people saying, "What a brilliant speech, Prime Minister … I did enjoy your question … Would you come to my constituency?" On the day Harold resigned, no one spoke to him at all. The man was stripped of his patronage by his own resignation. It made a profound impression on me, which I keep to this day.
      7.45 pm
      I must not anticipate a Bill—for which I now have all-party support—to take all the Crown powers, including the power of patronage, from the Prime Minister and put them into this House to be authorised by vote. If we did that, we would make the final advance towards a democratic system. In Britain, we are allowed to elect only a third of our constitution; we do not elect the second Chamber and we do not elect the Head of State.
      802
      The Prime Minister's powers do not come from the electorate; once he has a majority, they come from the Crown. Until we look at all those issues together, we will not make sense. Getting rid of a few old hereditary peers will not move us a little bit closer to the democratic society in which I would like to live.
      Mr. Maclennan: I, too, have a memory similar to that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) scorched into the back of my mind. Within five days of Harold Wilson's resignation, I went into the Members' Dining Room and saw him sitting there alone, clearly lonely. I took it upon myself to sit beside him; something I would have hesitated to do a week before, lest it be thought that I was currying favour with him.
      There are other respects in which I found the development of the thinking of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield extremely interesting. At one stage, he was less enthusiastic about a second Chamber. I am happy to hear that he has thrown his weight behind an elected second Chamber. As others have said, there have been three occasions, at least, when the Labour party has campaigned for a unicameral solution.
      Mr. Benn: For the record, I wrote a pamphlet 42 years ago on turning the Privy Council into a second Chamber. I do not hold to that view now, but please acquit me of being a unicameralist. I have always thought that a second Chamber had useful functions to perform.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to hear that, and I note the distinction between the right hon. Gentleman's position and that of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), whose trenchant speech and powerful statement—that patronage tends to corrupt—is one with which we all ought to agree. We witness it in this place. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were elected to control the Executive arm of Government, it was an aspiration that, no doubt, he and others have voiced to the electorate. However, we must have a realisation of the corrupting effect of patronage on the exercise of that power in this Chamber.
      It is partly for that reason that it is so important that we have a second Chamber—perhaps one from which no Ministers are drawn in patronage, and which does not offer the opportunities to Governments to draw into their wake those who are elected to scrutinise their activity. I would like the royal commission to consider that.
      I hope that our debate and its probable outcome will not be taken by the royal commission to show that the House, not having made the amendment, pins its colours to a second Chamber in which patronage is a predominant element. Such a Chamber would be basically undemocratic. The more it is appointed, the less democratic it will be and the less value it will have in our constitution as a watchdog and a restraint on the Executive.
      I do not expect the amendment to be passed, partly because the Government are committed to the view that they should not take a stand on the second Chamber's composition and powers before the royal commission has reported. As they have such a substantial majority, they will undoubtedly carry the day.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: It is always interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of Government

      803
      policy, which is often much clearer than when we hear it from the Treasury Bench. If the royal commission says that patronage is an essential part of a second Chamber, will the Liberal Democrats accept that?
      Mr. Maclennan: Our view is a great deal clearer than that of the Labour party. We have decided in considerable detail how we believe the upper House should be constituted. We think that it should be predominantly elected, and we have held that position for many years. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, election is essential.
      I argued strongly within our party that the second Chamber should be filled entirely by election, and I believe that our constitution is tending in that direction. On that, I agree with more than one Conservative Member. Once we have unlocked the issue and exposed the anachronism and anomalies, the great good sense of the British public will be brought to bear on the subject, and the views expressed by Winston Churchill as a Liberal in 1907 will be seen to be contemporary and appropriate.
      It is ludicrous to have different categories of Members, some of them elected, with undoubted legitimacy, and some appointed, with questionable legitimacy. A system with two classes of citizen in the upper House simply will not last, although it may be an acceptable staging post. That is why it is not unprincipled to advocate an incrementalist approach to a written constitution.
      As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, we have no experience of the interactions involved; more's the pity, perhaps. Without the interruptions of wars or revolutions or events such as those that brought about the fifth republic in France, these exercises in Cartesian logic are something that the British public have found exotic and have not been willing to embrace.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why does the right hon. Gentleman resist the amendment, when it applies only to a transitional House and to new appointments made by patronage in that transitional House?
      Mr. Maclennan: That is not how I read it. My understanding was that the amendment was designed to enunciate a principle that would have lasting force. I find it difficult to take exception to that principle; however, it is not part of the Bill, but part of what is to come. In that spirit, I hope that we can return to the matter and that the royal commission will take from this debate a sense that even those who are not willing to support the amendment will none the less judge the report by the extent to which it is committed to the principles enunciated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and by others, such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would find it difficult to deal with two classes of Members. Am I mistaken, or does his party support, for European elections, precisely the creation of two classes of Member?
      Mr. Maclennan: We support one class of Member: one elected by the British people. Election may be from
      804
      different bases, but I am defending the principle of election. That is a unitary principle that cannot and should not be watered down. Granted, not all political parties have such internally democratic systems of presenting their candidates to the public as the Liberal Democrat party—but that is perhaps to follow a red herring further than is necessary in the interests of keeping in order.
      I hope that the royal commission will understand that we want a legitimate second Chamber and that legitimacy is directly proportional to election. The less the Chamber is elected, the less account will be taken of it by the country and by the Government. The arguments may be wise, sophisticated, knowledgable and independent, but, if they are not delivered by elected people, they will not carry weight. The country needs a second Chamber that carries weight, which is why the principle of election should be given much greater weight than it has been given in the discussions hitherto.
      Mr. Winnick: The amendment is superficially attractive, but I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has jumped the gun and that it is inappropriate for us to decide today the composition of a second Chamber. After all, a royal commission has been appointed, so why anticipate its findings? My hon. Friend and others are at liberty to make representations to the royal commission, but when he says that patronage should be completely excluded he is saying that there is no need for a royal commission to investigate the matter, because we can make a decision tonight. I do not believe that we should do that.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I ask my hon. Friend exactly the same question as I asked the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). If the royal commission says that the Prime Minister's patronage should be an important and integral part of appointments to the second Chamber, will he accept that?
      8 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I shall certainly deal with that in the course of what I hope will be my brief remarks.
      As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway has already admitted, the amendment has united Labour Members with differing views about the composition of the second Chamber. In one respect, if in one only, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I do not want a single Chamber either. I believe that that would be wrong, and am very much in favour of a second Chamber. Others argue the related case that any second Chamber must be democratically elected or it will have no legitimacy.
      I witnessed a similar sort of coalition in 1969, when Labour and Conservative Members united, even though normally their views were very different. How quickly time passes: I have gained some grey hairs in the intervening 30 years, but at least I am sitting in the same corner seat as I occupied then, and I was pleased to return to it after 18 years in opposition.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway asked me a question about the second Chamber. I believe strongly that a fully elected second Chamber would be a direct challenge to this House. If that were the Government's proposal, I would not vote for it. I hope that I am as democratic as anyone else. My right hon.

      805
      Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke about the changes and reforms pioneered, to a large extent, by Labour Members. If I had been around at the time, I hope that I would have fully supported reforms such as votes for women, universal adult suffrage, and the abolition of the property qualification.
      I do not believe, in expressing my opinion tonight, that I have ceased to be a democrat. I have believed, strongly and for many years, that a fully elected second Chamber—the essence of the amendment, and a proposal also made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—is the inevitable consequence of the removal of patronage. That is why I am speaking to this amendment.
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I have never quite understood the argument about the legitimacy of a directly elected second Chamber and the potential for confrontation with this House. Would it not be possible to set the precedence of this House in statute, and thereby resolve the problem?
      Mr. Winnick: Of course. If the second Chamber were to be a fully democratically elected House, I have no doubt that, in the very nature of things, we would set down certain superior powers for this House. No one is suggesting that the two Houses would have equal powers.
      Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
      Mr. Winnick: What would happen in practice is that, in the event of a clash between this House and a fully elected second Chamber, that Chamber would have as much legitimacy as this House. It is bound to.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: Of course.
      Mr. Winnick: I, however, want this House to be supreme, and to be the decisive voice in law-making—
      Mr. Grieve rose—
      Mr. Fisher rose—
      Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
      Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
      Mr. Winnick: I am sorry to arouse such controversy. That was not my aim. I used to leave that to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, but I just want to finish my point. When we were in opposition and there was a Conservative Government—and especially since we have been in government—how many times, when the House of Lords has rejected a measure, have hon. Members—Front-Bench and Back-Bench alike—dismissed that House's right to intrude in such matters? We have always claimed that we in this House decide matters, but that will not be possible with a fully elected second Chamber. We should have no illusions on that score.
      Mr. McAllion: A Scottish Parliament will be a fully elected second Chamber. Why does my hon. Friend think that it will be unable to coexist with the fully elected House of Commons?
      The Chairman: Order. If I may, I ask the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to wait a moment before
      806
      he responds. I think that we are getting involved in a debate that is too wide. The amendment is about the power of patronage to the House of Lords that will exist as a result of the passage of this Bill. It cannot be occasion for the much wider debate about an elected Chamber or a non-elected Chamber. Obviously, arguments against patronage might well refer to a preference for an elected Chamber, but only in passing: it is not the central part of the debate.
      Mr. Winnick: I accept that, Sir Alan, and although I had a very good response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), your guidance means that I am obviously not in a position to give it.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a little quaint to talk of patronage as if it exists only in the other place? In this House, the Chief Whip is the Patronage Secretary, and there are hon. Members who are desperate for patronage and anxious for preferment.
      Mr. Winnick: I see that Sir Alan is wearing a worried and anxious look. Clearly, I would be in difficulties if I were to pursue that question—although I did earlier, when I mentioned judges, Ministers and the rest. Their positions are all the result of patronage, and the notion that, in itself, patronage is absolutely evil and must never be countenanced is nonsense. It is part of life—certainly it is part of every walk of political life.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Can we not make a distinction between patronage that puts people at the heart of the legislature, and patronage in other areas of life?
      Mr. Winnick: What about Ministers? They carry a tremendous amount of authority, but are not subject to any election to become Ministers. If I were able to pursue the matter, Sir Alan, I could mention people in very senior positions, perhaps outside Parliament, whose authority is very great and who are subject to appointment in all sorts of ways. Not least among them are the most senior judges in this country.
      I conclude by saying that I have strong views, which I have expressed. Obviously, those who believe in a fully elected second Chamber have equally strong views. However, the purpose of the royal commission is to examine all such questions. It is right and proper that it has been set up, and it should have as much representation as possible from people with strong views such as myself, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, and many others. It is not our function tonight to make a decision about whether patronage should be excluded.
      Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something of great interest to me, if not to the rest of the House? Is he asserting that there is no problem with the supremacy of the Executive at present, and no excess of patronage in our constitution?
      Mr. Winnick: No, I am not saying anything of the kind. Part of the function of this House is to keep the Executive in check. One can criticise, as Conservative Members do, and say that we are not doing our job as well as we should. That is fair enough for the Opposition, although I personally believe that Select Committees are

      807
      effective. If necessary, I will be controversial and criticise the Government. I do not lack the necessary courage, but I always bear it in mind that I was elected as a Labour candidate. I was not elected as an independent, any more than was the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). We must bear such factors in mind when deciding whether to take a certain line.
      It is not for us tonight—although it will be in the future—to make the final decision about the second Chamber, which is what we would be doing if the amendment were to be accepted. In those circumstances, I hope that it will be rejected decisively.
      Mr. Shepherd: I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) should accept his peerage as soon as possible, before the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) comes into effect.
      I am truly disappointed in the hon. Member for Walsall, North, if only because he has a touching faith in royal commissions. We must remember that this House has not even had an opportunity yet to discuss the White Paper, with its extraordinary contentions. In point of fact, the amendments are a device to allow us to try to examine the shape of the House of Lords, or the second Chamber, in the future.
      One of the most remarkable features of the House is that we are often denied the opportunity to discuss the most important, relevant and immediate subjects that confront us. The Bill is drafted almost to ensure that any comment we may make on the future composition of the House of Lords will be out of order. It is a nightmare, and it is nonsense.
      I gave a cheer for the hon. and learned Member for Medway. It is a great privilege, of course, to be able to hear him without having to pay a king's ransom in fees, and for that reason, if for no other, some patronage should perhaps be put in his direction. I cheer, too, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who has voiced what many Members of the House feel. The Committee has seemed to come alive, and we are having a debate on Back-Bench amendments that have brought out a large number of Government supporters. Our depleted numbers have been well represented too. The debate has even diverted from his journey to Downing street the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). That is a rare privilege, and we should acknowledge it.
      The debate has not, however, produced the principal actors in the drama. We hardly see the Prime Minister, so important and grand is he. He can boom forth an Act that will consecrate and secure his patronage without troubling himself with its passage, or troubling us with his presence in the House. That is how contemptuous the Crown in Downing street—the right honourable Prime Minister—now is of the House of Commons.
      The Prime Minister's spinning wheel has also deserted the Chamber. It would be too much to expect the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to attend a
      808
      debate that is clearly beyond the control of the bleeper machines with which we are all issued so that we may be summoned to address the great issues of the day.
      Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have seen neither hide nor hair of the Leader of the Opposition.
      Mr. Shepherd: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition voted, and I give a cheer for that, but a vote is one thing. The tradition and custom of the House used to be that those who seek to govern us, and who govern us only because they have the support of the majority of the Members of the House, should occasionally attend the House, if only to salute those who slave away in the salt mines to try to give effect to their will.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend may recall one of the formidable episodes of the previous Government. At 4 am once we were all at a low ebb, and through the door came, immaculately turned out, the then Prime Minister, ready to attend upon debates on important constitutional matters.
      The Chairman: Order. I had more or less made up my mind that the encomium to Back Benchers given by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) should cease so that he could move on to the terms of the amendment.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Shepherd: I am obliged to you, Sir Alan, for a ruling that exhibits the very limitations that restrict us. We are confronted with an issue, yet we may not address its substance. I am not qualified to comment on the dress sense of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and I was not summoned here to do so. I agree, Sir Alan, that it does not seem greatly in order to try.
      The House is attempting to wrestle with a matter of importance. There is a White Paper, and we have not discussed it. We are leaping into the dark with a flurry of explanatory footnotes. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool gave us his attention yesterday and has been here today. On Second Reading, he advised us that he, and he alone, was responsible for feeding us a royal commission. He has, of course, departed the scene now.
      We are grappling with an horrendous process. The absurdity is that a growing number of Members across the Floor of the House are articulating a profound belief that we should rein in the powers of Downing street. Those of us who have sat here for more than one Parliament have transferred from one side to another of the Chamber. The complaints of yesterday, which we rejected so grandly when we were in office, are now our complaints.
      What gels and cements subservience into us? I was elected only by the people of Aldridge-Brownhills, just as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was elected only by the people of Chesterfield. Our authority is not on sufferance from the Prime Minister, even one whose general policy we might support. Before us is a proposal for the future that will curtail patronage.
      The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has not commented on the fact that his own party leader glues his party together by the exercise of

      809
      patronage. There is no question about that. For all the right hon. Gentleman's grand phrases—and his even grander equivocations—about where he stood on the terms of the amendment, I was not sure whether he, a distinguished lawyer, knew whether he would vote for or against the amendment. At the end of his lengthy speech, I was none the wiser.
      I earnestly ask the House to support the hon. and learned Member for Medway. He offers a chink by which to remove patronage as the basis for future membership of the House of Lords—the same reason for which I tabled amendment No. 15. After a period, when the present beneficiaries of patronage have suspired their last at the end of their labours, we would be left with a House passing laws, but constituted only of judges and bishops and archbishops of the Church of England.
      No one in Aldridge-Brownhills thinks that a serious suggestion. My constituents would be puzzled if a House were satisfactory to the Government that merely contained bishops, however worthy they may be. No matter how much we may seek out the bishops for spiritual guidance—even, sometimes, for temporal advice—we should not seek them out to make our laws. As for Law Lords, I should gladly turn to them for advice on the meaning of the laws on which we have decided, but I cannot think in truth that they should make the laws that they themselves will judge. That is why the amendment is so important.
      Mr. Swayne: On the subject of bishops, is there not a danger of Cardinal Wolsey's words being fulfilled? The cardinal wished that many things were reformed, but feared that others would come after who might reform upon the reformations, and so proceeding, there would be nothing left. I fear that we are being led in that direction, and that we are unpicking delicate questions that may leave the very monarchy exposed.
      Mr. Shepherd: I wish my hon. Friend well on the Bench of bishops. As for the concept of the monarchy exposed, I merely have to think of Lady Bracknell. This myth has been exploded. The Scandinavian democracies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have no hereditary peerage to act as legislators, yet their attachment to their present constitutional arrangements is in some respects perhaps even stronger than our nation's attachment to ours.
      Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is impossible to have patronage in Government and society? I will briefly tell him a story about Wales. We were in opposition for 18 years. After we came to power, someone asked me, "What are you doing trying to abolish all the quangos? We've been waiting for 18 years to be appointed to them". Last year, democracy was extended. Labour Members voted for that extension in the form of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that we have abolished any quangos in Wales. We will now have a democratically elected Welsh Assembly and more appointed—through patronage—quangos. The two will always be together.
      Mr. Shepherd: That is the wisest of observations. Of course, you would not want me to go into the ways of Labour patronage in Wales, Sir Alan. I am merely dealing with the nature of patronage in the upper Chamber. I want
      810
      to grasp the principle that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) described. The Prime Minister is anxious that the hon. Gentleman's concept of patronage should not come about in Wales and is making personal visits there—more, it seems, than he makes here. His candidate for the leadership of the Labour party—
      The Chairman: Order. I do not want to hear any more of that.
      Mr. Shepherd: Two Members from Cardiff would dispute that, Sir Alan.
      We are dealing with patronage in the House of Lords and simple principles have been annunciated. The hon. and learned Member for Medway said something important. We are the elected representatives; we are capable of accomplishing these things. We have not yet discussed the White Paper, we cannot look to the future and we are being asked to leap in the dark. The amendment was a simple device to pull the carpet aside and enable us to suggest a way forward.
      I do not have overweening respect for a royal commission whose members include a former Chief Whip, a former Foreign Secretary and great bureaucrat, and a former Back-Bench Labour Member. Why does that constitute the future for democratic Government? What Act provides for it? It is in itself an act of patronage.
      Mr. McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the idea that those who dislike those making the appointments call it patronage and those who like the person making the appointments call it judicious selection on merit?
      Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that we could think up acronyms that sum up our views—judicious this, judicious that or whatever.
      Let us give it a whirl and go for it: let us make this our one statement to resonate with a royal commission which has only nine months to review all these matters, forgetting the years of service and understanding of democratic principles that are represented in this Chamber. I support the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I will come to amendment No. 13 in a moment. First, I must draw the attention of the Committee to new clause 10, in my name, which would at least put a declaration of intent on the face of the legislation—
      The Chairman: Order. Although I have done the hon. Gentleman the compliment of selecting his new clause, it is in a grouping under clause 4 and it would not be in order to refer to it at this stage.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I take your point, Sir Alan and I will refer to the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The thrust of his remarks was to cast doubt about whether there will be a second stage to this reform, to illustrate the problems of the interim House, how Members would be appointed to it and the patronage that would ensue.
      Before consideration of the Bill by the House, I argued with Ministers that they should give Labour Members in particular, although not exclusively, some indication that

      811
      they intended that there should be a second stage. Problems are presented by the so-called interim House, which many of us find unpalatable because of the amount of patronage involved. I tried to persuade Ministers that the Bill should contain some indication that there would be a second stage, but they said that it could not be done. The Parliament Act 1911 contained an indication of a second stage of reform, although it did not come about—it stated that it would lead to a democratically elected House. I do not think that one can pre-judge that, although I want a democratically elected House. The architects of this legislation should have put on the face of the Bill an indication that there would at least be some form of second stage. I regret that they felt unable to do so.
      I fear that, five years from now, despite the protestations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we will not have had the second stage. That will in no way be a reflection on her. On the contrary, I am certain that she intends that there should be a second stage. However, I suspect that, some years from now, when some of us are asking when it will happen, she will no longer be Lord President of the Council. She will have moved on, or been moved on. Also, the Government will no doubt then face pressures similar to those faced by others who have been committed to radical reform of the upper House. They will say that there is not the legislative time. There will be other pressures—perhaps they will not be able to get the agreement of the Opposition. I believe that the whole matter will simply be kicked into touch.
      8.30 p.m
      I give notice, Sir Alan: five years from this date, if I am returned at the next general election, I intend to stand on a point of order and draw attention to the official record of our deliberations this evening. I shall either strike my breast while saying, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—I was wrong," or I shall show that the Government's commitments on introducing a second stage have not come about.
      The reason why I am so concerned is patronage—which is addressed by the amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. I do not believe that it is possible to construct a method of appointment that will avoid all the problems or the sins of patronage, while giving representation to minorities, dissidents, the awkward squad, the eccentric and the bloody-minded. I put it to the Committee that all those ingredients are essential if there is to be true deliberation in a parliamentary Chamber.
      It so happens that the democratic process, albeit crudely and inadequately, succeeds in throwing up the bloody-minded, the eccentric, the difficult and the truculent. Therefore, like many other hon. Members, I am drawn inexorably to the conclusion that, instead of patronage, we should have a democratically elected Chamber.
      Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mackinlay: Yes, although I notice that the hon. Gentleman has only dipped into this debate.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be possible for the House of Commons to restrict
      812
      the element of patronage available to the Prime Minister of the day by limiting the number of appointments that he could make and using alternative forms of patronage? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has pointed out that judges and bishops sit in the upper House, not through the Prime Minister's patronage, but through other means. We could extend such patronage to trade unions, the Royal College of Nursing and to other professional bodies. The power of patronage need not belong exclusively to the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Either the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me, or I have conveyed my argument inadequately. I am complaining not just about the patronage of the Prime Minister, but about patronage in general. The hon. Gentleman describes the great and the good, the glitterati—that magic circle of people who run the country whether the Government are Labour or Conservative. The system that he proposes will not produce people who are prepared to challenge the system.
      Let me illustrate that point. As some hon. Members know, I am concerned about the democratic deficit in relation to Gibraltar. Once, in an argument with a Minister on the subject, I said that there should be representation for Gibraltar at Westminster; out of frustration, I suggested that Gibraltar should be given a seat in the House of Lords for a representative. The Minister paused and conceded that there might be something in my suggestion, but then added, "You're not suggesting that fool Bossano are you?" I tell that story because "fool" is Government-speak for someone who is truculent—an irritant. If one is truculent or an irritant, one is, ipso facto, a fool and so disqualified from receiving patronage.
      That is reflected in many ways. Many Members of the House of Lords are articulate people who contribute fully to debates. However, when deciding whom we want in the second Chamber, we have to take into account human nature: I would never appoint someone who irritates me, nor would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. We need some way of throwing the irritants up into the upper Chamber and the only way to do that is through democracy.
      Despite the power of the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, I was truly shocked and horrified by his suggestion that we should have a unicameral Parliament. I believe that we need an upper Chamber of Parliament that has legitimacy and some powers to frustrate and irritate the Government, whatever party is in office. I suspect that my new Labour colleagues will not be in government for ever—I hope that they last for a long time, but the ebb and flow of politics will continue in the United Kingdom—but we as legislators have to step back and recognise that we have to build in the means to frustrate the Government, whatever their colour.
      I want the view of the House of Commons ultimately to prevail and I want the manifesto presented by the winning party to prevail. However, the devil is in the detail and that has to be fully examined, and that does not currently happen in the House of Commons; the upper House has traditionally had the potential to fulfil that role. I believe that we need a second Chamber that is comprised differently from the House of Commons and that can force a degree of reflection on the excesses of the

      813
      Government, or on the badly drafted legislation that, from time to time, passes with some dispatch through Commons procedures.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that such a Chamber would present a challenge to the House of Commons, but I do not accept that. Most democracies of a size similar to ours are bicameral and, overwhelmingly, they have a popular upper House that is entrenched in a written constitution. Lacking a written constitution, we could put a provision in primary legislation that the view of the House of Commons will ultimately prevail. That does not mean that there should not be a period of reflection. My hon. Friend suggested that, if an upper House is elected, it will be equal to this House. First, I have demonstrated that that need not be the case. Secondly, it presupposes that the election for the other place would be held on the same day and for the same proportion of Members as the election for the House of Commons.
      In an earlier debate, I expressed my view that, instead of patronage, there should be a rolling programme of fixed-term elections to another House, so that there is never at one time a snapshot that gives that House a mandate. Every Member would have legitimacy drawn from the people who elected him or her. Unless there were a massive and continual loss of confidence in a particular Government, the governing party would, even in the worst-case scenario, have a substantial, if not the largest, wedge of seats in the upper House. Of course, on occasions, the Executive would have to negotiate, work hard and persuade.
      One of the problems of this place is that we have parliamentary dictatorship. That phrase was coined by Lord Hailsham—Quintin Hogg—probably in reference to the period following the 1983 general election, when there was a massive Conservative majority. Now the Labour party has a substantial majority and, although I welcome that, we need to review in detail propositions put forward by any Government with a large majority.
      Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend should recognise—this is, I fear, a consistent pattern—that, when Lord Hailsham spoke about the dangers of elective dictatorship he was talking about the possibility of the Labour party holding such power. It never bothered him when the Conservative party was in that position.
      Mr. Mackinlay: That may well be Lord Hailsham's position. He chopped and changed a great deal and moved about like a yo-yo.
      The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) referred to possible abuse. If I cannot persuade the Committee of my view on the basis of Quintin Hogg's expression, I ask hon. Members to reflect on the large majorities produced by our existing electoral system, which I expect will endure for a long time. Governments obviously want enthusiastically to support and push through their manifesto, but a braking mechanism is necessary so that details are considered and such foolishness as the poll tax legislation does not result. That is a classic example of legislation being pushed through the House with no brakes being applied.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the method of election can produce a direct form of
      814
      patronage? For example, he might think that a bicameral system that used proportional representation or a system of closed lists, in which parties rather than individuals are chosen on the basis of their position on a list, would produce checks and balances, but I have very severe reservations about that.
      Mr. Mackinlay: If I trespassed on to that subject, Mr. Lord, you would pull me up. Obviously, I have views about a revised electoral system and the methods of selecting and electing candidates for the European Parliament.
      We are trying to minimise patronage and abuse, and we cannot, in this Bill, legitimately sustain the case for a parliamentary Chamber that does not have a democratic base. I say to my hon. Friends, and also to Opposition Members: surely we can trust the electorate. Why are we so afraid of democratic elections for a parliamentary Chamber? Of course there would be a change of culture and a change in the relationship between the two Houses, but so be it—I welcome that. At present, far too much is choreographed and so much is certain.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, if we had a wholly elected second Chamber—that option may eventually be chosen—enormous power would be given to the party machines and no Cross Benchers would ever be elected?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Cross Benchers; they have no legitimacy whatsoever. Whom do they represent? Only themselves. Conservative Members have said that great contributions have been made by Cross Benchers, and indeed that is so, but many people who are not in the House of Lords would have made great contributions if they had been in the Lords. We can all think of wonderful people who, no doubt, if ennobled, would make wonderful contributions in the House of Lords. The choice of appointment is arbitrary. People who are Cross Benchers are those who have found the favour of a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition. Even when the Bill is passed, with this fancy commission, the oligarchy of the great and the good will still make the selection. There will not be many people from Dock road, Tilbury on the list, will there?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Two hundred and six or 210 of the Cross Benchers are hereditary, so they are not there as a result of immediate patronage. However, as we know to our cost in this Chamber, in an elected Chamber people can be elected only if they represent a party and have a party ticket. That gives enormous power of patronage—of choice—to the party. That is the sort of Chamber that we would have.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am prepared to do battle in my party, as I do, and I will live with that. Every democracy has imperfections, and it is a fact that political parties are controlled by party managers, but, by and large, I believe that we have shown, in our respective parties, that we can cope with that, and we shall endeavour to fight our corner. I am catching the eye of the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who wants me to conclude. I shall do so

      815
      in a moment, but that is an illustration of the fact that they want to choreograph everything. They find parliamentary debates irritating.
      Mr. Martin Bell rose—
      Mr. Tyrie rose—
      Mr. Mackinlay: I will give way to one independent in the Chamber.
      Mr. Bell: Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining that a Cross Bencher has no part to play in this House?
      Mr. Mackinlay: A Cross Bencher who is elected demonstrably has a large part to play in this House, because he has the mandate of the people to whom he presented himself at an election, but an appointed Cross Bencher has no mandate, and can speak for himself or herself only. They may or may not make common-sense contributions. In a democracy that has reached the stage that ours has, we cannot have people in Parliament who have no electoral base; it is absurd.
      I urge my hon. Friends to try to prove me and other doubters wrong, by demonstrating much more forcefully that there will be a second stage. I should like to know, either in the debate or elsewhere, how the Labour party will prepare its evidence to the royal commission and whether, after that evidence has been presented to the royal commission, I am expected to sign up to whatever is presented. In this very important constitutional debate, we need some relaxation of rules of party discipline. We need the freedom to generate ideas and express them to ascertain reactions.
      I suspect that, if there were a free vote in the House of Commons, there would be at least a narrow majority for a democratically elected upper House. However, we may well not be presented with that opportunity. In the absence of any constitutional convention, hon. Members are "the constitutional convention". I hope that that will be borne in mind.
      I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, or whoever replies to the debate for the Government, has a duty on this occasion to flesh out how and when the Joint Committee will work. Will it be able to take evidence? Will its sittings be limited? What will be its size and scale? There is nothing to prevent the Joint Committee from comprising the whole House. I believe that the recent Australian Constitutional Convention embraced most of the Members of the House of Representatives. We need to know that, because we are acquiescing in something without knowing all the ground rules.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Wells: Amendment No. 13 is a compromise. Unfortunately, it says:
      "or shall in future be appointed a member of the House of Lords by the exercise of patronage".
      I would have preferred it to continue, "or shall be appointed by a member of the House of Lords by exercise of patronage"—in which case we would have left the House of Lords without hereditary peers or life peers,
      816
      but with bishops and Law Lords only. In so doing, we would point up the fact that this Bill is a leap into the dark—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. It is a leap into the dark because we do not know the membership of the two Chambers committee. We now know some of the composition of the royal commission—and we are all drawing our own conclusions from its chairmanship and membership as to its remit. It is certainly not intended to engage in a serious discussion about important constitutional matters—if for no other reason than it is to report within nine months.
      My starting point is not the same as that of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I would leave the House of Lords roughly as it is at present, with some major changes regarding retirement arrangements and size. It is a strange and a crazy place. I believe that the right to sit in a legislature by virtue of birth is crazy and unacceptable. However, I would leave the House of Lords undisturbed because it is doing some useful work—which I acknowledge and pay tribute to, as did the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and many others. Yet this Bill will not allow the House of Lords to remain as it is—we must face that fact.
      It has been suggested that we should consider electing people to the House of Lords. That is clearly one option. It has also been suggested that we should continue the patronage system and appoint an unspecified number of people to the House of Lords by virtue of their success in life or, by some other means, provide the majority in the House of Lords that is necessary in order to pass without delay or obstruction whatever legislation the House of Commons has decided upon.
      It is clear that that is what the Government intend: they are prepared to appoint at least 55 people in addition to the appointments that they have already made to the House of Lords to ensure that there is a rough balance between Conservative and Labour Members, without taking into account Cross Benchers who will support much of the Government legislation. The Government's objective is clear: they wish to create a Chamber that will be subservient to this place and will do what they say.
      That appointed Chamber will be created by virtue of patronage of the grossest kind and the exercise of increasing Executive power. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and many other hon. Members have drawn attention to the immense power of the Prime Minister, which he gains by means of Crown patronage and by using the monarch in order to extend his power well beyond the capacity of the House of Commons to gainsay him or call him to account. Without this amendment, the Bill would leave us in that position.
      The amendment would make us think about where we are going. I think that we are being driven inexorably down the route of a unicameral Parliament. There is no way that any Prime Minister or Executive will endorse a scheme of elections that will second-guess the House of Commons that they control. They simply will not do it: turkeys do not vote for Christmas and Prime Ministers do not vote for second Chambers that obstruct their power and control over the House of Commons. That is entirely logical.
      An elected second Chamber may seem like a nice idea, but why do we need a second Chamber to second-guess the first Chamber if it is working properly? We must

      817
      consider that question in relation to this Bill. The House of Commons is not working properly because of the huge patronage power of the Prime Minister, because we do not consider Bills properly, and because Select Committee procedures are incomplete. Much reform is needed. Once we pass the Bill, the House of Commons must reform and recapture the power that it has lost to the Executive over the years.
      I commend the amendment because it will prevent the creation of a Chamber of which we cannot be certain whether it is temporary or permanent. The present one, as I pointed out earlier, has lasted 88 years. Once the Government get control of the second Chamber, they will have increased power of patronage. Lord Cranborne told me that, despite the House of Lords being dismissed as a useless debating chamber, he has people from the Conservative side of affairs who have given some service, usually to industry and business, but also to sport, the arts and so on, lining up to become life peers and wanting the exercise of patronage.
      The House that would be created by the Bill without the amendment would fall in public opinion and would be seen to be made up of Tony's cronies. Presumably, after the Prime Minister has left office, it would consist of the next Prime Minister's cronies. That is a despicable way to appoint a second Chamber. We shall not get an elected Chamber, and we shall have huge arguments over that. An elected Chamber would quarrel with this Chamber.
      We are therefore inexorably driven to a unicameral Parliament. If there is to be a unicameral Parliament, we must recapture the powers over the Executive that this House has lost, and we shall have to reform this House in great detail.
      Mr. Fisher: I welcome the amendment, as it gives us the opportunity to discuss what role, if any, should be played by appointment and patronage in determining the membership of the second Chamber.
      At last we are reforming the House of Lords and abolishing the hereditary principle. That is long overdue, and I congratulate the Government on fulfilling their manifesto commitment to end the hereditary principle. There are, however, two aspects of the House of Lords that I find unacceptable. The first is that its membership is, in large part, hereditary. The second is that it is not democratically elected. The Bill attempts to reform only the first of those two defects.
      The amendment is important because it allows us to discuss the second defect. The question goes right to the heart of politics: how should any society decide who should govern, who should legislate and who should determine the membership of the bodies that legislate and govern? I believe that all the key legislative and administrative institutions, and above all Parliament, should be elected by the people, by direct democratic election.
      Throughout this century, ever since the 1911 Act, we have tolerated the hereditary and unelected House of Lords because we could not change it. Here at last we have a Labour Government with a good working majority, a will to challenge the House of Lords and the mandate to reform it. I have waited for all that for the 35 years that I have been in the Labour party and all my political life.
      That is wonderful, but we are planning to correct only one of the political defects of the House of Lords, and we seem to be planning to perpetuate the other. Is that the
      818
      case? What will the royal commission consider? Is the Government's mind still open to a wholly elected second Chamber? I believe that it is for this Chamber and the Government to determine the principles on which the other Chamber should be constituted, and it is for the royal commission to consider the details.
      Tonight we are discussing the principle—the shape. That should not be left to a royal commission. It is a matter that only an elected body such as ourselves—elected by the people of this country—should determine. There is an enormous distinction between the principles and the detail.
      If the royal commission is not to consider the principles, why is it that the Government appear to believe in appointment and in patronage as the way of determining membership of the second Chamber? They do not believe in that for any other body. They have done extraordinary work in creating an Assembly for Wales and a Parliament for Scotland, and in restarting directly elected democracy in Northern Ireland. There is no element of appointment or patronage in any of that—everybody is directly elected.
      What about local government, where the Government also plan reforms? If any Opposition Member proposed that the reform of local government should be based on patronage and appointment, rather than direct election, the Government would rightly ridicule any such suggestion and laugh it out of court. What about the European Parliament, to which there was indirect appointment, rather than election, until 1979? Would the Government want to return to an appointed European Parliament? If not—and, of course, they would not—why do they want to have a system of appointment built into the membership of the second Chamber?
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman talks about the European Parliament. Is he aware that a Labour Member of the European Parliament was effectively deprived, not of his membership of the European Parliament, but certainly of the Labour Whip, by the withdrawal of patronage by the Prime Minister on the ground that that Labour MEP opposed the closed-list system?
      Mr. Fisher: That individual is a Member of the European Parliament for the duration of the Parliament, because he was elected by his constituents. He is a Member by election, not by appointment.
      Mrs. Beckett: That person walked out.
      Mr. Fisher: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
      Mrs. Beckett: I was not intervening on my hon. Friend, but should say to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who clearly does not know what he is talking about, that nobody was deprived of the Labour Whip. A couple of people chose to leave the Labour party in circumstances where nobody was seeking to remove them. That was nothing whatever to do with the closed list and the hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
      Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We are discussing how to determine membership. Those people are Members of the European Parliament because they were elected to it.

      819
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), whom I respect in many matters, does not want a directly elected second Chamber because it would have a legitimacy that would threaten this Chamber. I believe that he is fundamentally wrong—there is a great difference between primacy and legitimacy. That view was held by Mr. Michael Foot, and others whom I also respect, but it is a poor argument and simply not true.
      Fundamentally, that argument lacks confidence in this Chamber and in our ability to design a remit for the second Chamber that would provide legitimacy of its own, but not legitimacy that had primacy over us. It would be for this Chamber—in determining our role and that of the second Chamber—to determine the separation of powers and maintain our primacy.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fisher: The Committee wants to move swiftly to a vote, so, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way. He has already spoken.
      If the amendment is put to a vote, I shall vote for it. I have never voted against the Government, and I shall do so with considerable regret and sadness, but this question goes to the heart of our politics. As several hon. Members have said, it is a simple question: who should decide who sits in Parliament? I believe that it should be the people. We are accountable to our constituents. That is what gives us our authority. That is why we are Members of Parliament. The same should be true of the whole of our Parliament—of the other Chamber, as well. The people should decide who sits in that Chamber, not Members of this House. We have our chance to extend that principle of democracy right across our Parliament. We should grasp it.
      9 pm
      Mr. Letwin: It has been a privilege for someone relatively new to the House to listen to the entire debate, which has been occasioned by the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and colleagues from both sides of the House. His eloquence and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and others has been occasioned by the fact that this group of amendments takes us to the heart of the great issues that the Bill raises.
      At the heart of the Bill is the question whether the Executive currently have an overweening power that must be addressed, whether the Bill in its current form and without amendment does that, or whether the Bill as drafted makes that problem worse.
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and I argued vigorously in the first day's debate that this country suffers from a lack of scrutiny of critical measures that come before us in this House and in the other place. There is a lack of scrutiny of the Administration, of the 3,000-odd statutory instruments that come before us, of the legislation by prerogative power in Brussels, of appropriations and primary legislation. We argued then and I argue now that,
      820
      without any of the amendments, the Bill does nothing to solve any of those problems. In fact, it worsens them, because, as many hon. Members on both sides have said, it creates a second Chamber that is even more in the hands of the Executive—were that possible—than today's Chamber.
      The question that we have been debating for the past few hours is how best to address that problem within the confines of the Bill. The amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Medway is a radical solution that, in many respects, attracts us. It would become yet more radical by intention if amendment No. 15 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills were accepted. If the amendment was tabled with the purpose of allowing us to speak about the final solution for the House of Lords—if I can use that dreadful phrase, by which I mean the second phase—it has provoked the profoundest reflections, expressed in the right spirit. We owe my hon. Friend a great favour.
      It is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to consider what has, alas, befallen us. We are not merely a debating society discussing a possible future phase 2. I think that it was the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) who said that, in the absence of a constitutional convention, the House is the constitutional convention. We face the reality that, as things stand, the House is so in the grip of the Executive that, de facto, it is they who are turning into the constitutional convention, and they have been able to introduce wide-ranging constitutional reforms with hardly a check. As a result, there is a great likelihood that we will have a second Chamber that is interim in name only. That point has repeatedly been made today, yesterday and on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      It falls to Her Majesty's Opposition—I hope that the Government will feel that it falls to them also—to consider the question of how we shall be governed in what may be a very long interim period. In that context, we see a problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway. Although it serves admirably to force the issue and to push towards phase 2, were it to be implemented in the form in which he proposes it, and were there never to be such a phase or were there to be a prolonged interim period, the power of the other place would dwindle remarkably. If amendment No. 15 were also accepted, a further problem would ensue. Indeed, we might have a House that was no House at all: we might have unicameralism by default. In that event, hon. Members who seek that as a long-term solution would have achieved their goal, but I suspect that they are few in number, and that neither Her Majesty's Opposition nor the Government seek such a result at present.
      We must address the serious question of how we are to deal with a Bill that will bring us an interim Chamber, and try to find a solution to the problem that amendment No. 13 rightly raises.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe what he has just said? If the amendment were passed, it would concentrate the Government' s mind something wonderful, and it would not defer the

      821
      long-term reform of the House of Lords that all Labour Members support root and branch; indeed, it would hasten it beyond our dreams.
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. It would concentrate the mind something wonderful, and, taken with amendment No. 14, it would concentrate it even more. Alas, that is the very reason why, I am presumptuous enough to guess, the Government will not accept either amendment. We therefore face a practical problem: we shall have an interim House that will not benefit from amendments of this kind for the very reason advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman—that it would force an early move to a system to which we believe the Government have not the slightest intention of moving in the early future.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not nonsensical to suggest that the transitional House will extend into the indefinite future without collusion between the two Front Benches? If the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition are calling for a directly elected Second Chamber, it simply is not practical politics—especially given the divisions on the Labour Benches—for the transitional House to continue indefinitely. It will not happen.
      Mr. Letwin: I fear that the divisions of which the hon. Gentleman speaks—the divisions in the Labour party—will prevent the Government from moving rapidly towards a system that would split their party very fast. The Government may have the necessary courage; Opposition Members hope that they will. They may establish a royal commission that will produce serious results, but, in framing the commission's terms of reference, they have done their best to prevent such an eventuality. None of us has any more faith than the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, that the interim solution will soon disappear and give way to phase 2. Even if it does, there will be a period during which the interim solution is the solution: during which—this is the serious aspect of today's debate—we shall have a House of Parliament formed by the Bill.
      This is not just a debating society; we are making a constitution, for at least a period. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is bound to grant me that. I speculate that it will be a long period, and he thinks that it will be short, but for a time that will be our constitution.
      Because the Government, however regrettably, will not accept the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has come up with a different proposal: an attempt to control patronage by means of an Appointments Commission, whose members will be appointed by the Speaker and which will be free from prime ministerial patronage. Perhaps the Government will see fit to accept his proposal, which would be splendid. The Opposition, however—some of my hon. Friends may blame me for this—have learnt something from the excessively supine attitude of Liberal Democrats. We have sought to table new clauses that are eirenic, constructive and abominably nice from the Government's point of view—new clauses that make it as easy as possible for the Government actually and practically to address, within the spirit of their own measure, the problem to which their Bill would give rise without such amendment. That is the intention of new clauses 5, 4 and 3.
      822
      I put the new clauses in that order because we designed them to meet specific aims. New clause 5 is intended to give the widest possible effect to our intentions. If the Government reject it because they think that it goes too far, we offer them new clause 4; if the Government think that even that goes too far, why! in our boundless attempt to be "Liberal Democrat" and constructive in our pursuit of a less bad Bill, we offer them new clause 3.
      New clause 5 is based on a document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred and which should be familiar to Ministers. That document states:
      "Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. We are committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers."
      It is not a document that will appear unduly revolutionary to Ministers. It is, of course, the Labour party manifesto. New clause 5 should have the appearance of some legitimacy as it attempts to translate into legislative practice precisely the words that I have just read from the Labour party manifesto. In so doing, it tries to remove some—only some, but some—of the power of the Executive through the patronage of the Prime Minister under the Crown.
      New clause 5 gives the Appointments Commission statutory existence in the first place. In passing, may I say that it is remarkable that the Bill does not do that? It is remarkable because, throughout the passage of the Bill, Ministers have said that they intend to have such an Appointments Commission and have made much of the fact that the commission, rather than the Prime Minister, will appoint Cross Benchers. Is it not odd, then, that there is no Appointments Commission mentioned in the Bill? Through new clause 5, we introduce such a commission. We also invoke a rule of double proportionality: first, that the appointments that the commission makes in respect of party representatives should be proportional to the results of the votes in the last general election; and, secondly, that Cross Benchers should be appointed in proportion to the number of people not voting in the last election.
      I do not describe those devices as grand or wonderful. They are simply a constructive attempt to get through to Ministers something better than the ghastly, overweening patronage in the Bill. What better source for that can we possibly find than the proposals in the Labour party manifesto?
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman criticises at every opportunity the patronage of the present Government. As an Opposition spokesman, there is no reason why he should not do that, but the Prime Minister has said that he will give up the veto on nominations by the Conservative party and other political parties. Is the hon. Gentleman aware—obviously, he was not in the House at the time—that, following the 1983 election, Michael Foot, then Labour leader, made a number of nominations and the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, vetoed nearly all of them? That was excessive patronage by the then Prime Minister over nominations by the Opposition party. That was an abuse of patronage.
      Mr. Letwin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point because the next thing that new clause 5 does is precisely designed to address that. It puts in the hands of the Speaker the appointments of the Appointments Commission. It distances the commission entirely from

      823
      prime ministerial patronage. That is surely an aim that Labour Members, Conservative Members and Ministers should share.
      New clauses 4 and 3 are merely variants on that theme. They attempt to give, by statute, registered political parties—hence without the Prime Minister's veto of which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) speaks—and the Speaker, via the Appointments Commission, a clear role in appointments which distances those appointments from the Prime Minister.
      I cannot understand why Ministers should find it difficult to accept one or other of the new clauses—of course, in some revised form if Ministers object to their drafting. Any one of them would at least represent an important advance on a Bill that will create a new Chamber that may last a long time, and will have the disastrous effect of putting in place a huge number of new placemen.
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so soon after my first intervention.
      Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what Lady Thatcher did in 1983 was a great abuse of patronage, which has never been repeated by the present Prime Minister and that there has never been the slightest suggestion that he would do so?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman sorely tempts me to start repeating some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said about current patronage, but I shall not, because I do not want now to engage in party political bickering. We are talking about a Bill that very soon will create a new House. Surely it falls to us to try to remedy the problems to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—regardless of which party gives rise to the problems or the Government who are responsible for them. Many hon. Members have spoken eloquently to that purpose in this debate, and I do not see why we should allow ourselves to descend into party political bickering when such a matter is under consideration.
      It may be argued that there is no need for this group of amendments. I half suspect that, in his reply, the Minister will tell us that there is no need for them. He will tell us, perhaps, that the Neill Committee, the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and I know not what other worthy bodies—of which there are many—can be appointed by the Prime Minister but that their members can, nevertheless, display an admirable independence. That is perfectly and abundantly true.
      Members of the Neill Committee have been—to the Government's considerable discomfiture—extremely independent-minded in their critique, for example, of the recent Welsh referendum. We shall owe to them much of what I hope will be enacted by passage of the Referendums Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and in the Government's future legislation. I do not for a moment deny that we will owe such future provision to the independence of those committee members.
      Before the Minister makes that argument today, however, I hope that he will reflect on the fact that his own logic is utterly destroyed by his own proposals. If the
      824
      Minister really believes that the Prime Minister will be able to appoint or select Members of the upper House on a basis that will ensure their independence, the Government do not need an Appointments Commission.
      It is very odd that the Leader of the House should have made such great play of the fact that the Prime Minister will hand over selection of Cross Benchers to such a commission. If the Prime Minister is capable entirely of selecting an independent Appointments Commission, why not simply select an entirely independent set of Cross Benchers? The fact is that the Government have admitted that there is at the very least a problem of appearance, and possibly—
      Mrs. Beckett: We have the Nolan principles.
      Mr. Letwin: We know that; there are all sorts of Nolan principles, which could apply also to the selection of peers—why not? They cannot because the right hon. Lady and her colleagues admit implicitly that there is a problem at least of appearance and perhaps in reality.
      The Government believe that we need an Appointments Commission. Why not therefore move one stage further, at least, and hand the selection of that commission to the Speaker—as all hon. Members have confidence in that source? Alternatively, why not allow the registered political parties to make, without a veto, political appointments to the Appointments Commission? We offer either alternative, or both, with or without the Labour party manifesto's own proportionality rules. We offer a complete menu of possibilities.
      Today, it falls to the Government to show the Committee that they really mean not to increase—as, unfortunately, we suspect that they do mean to increase—patronage by adopting at least one of our proposals, given that they are, alas, unlikely to adopt the far more radical proposals of the hon. and learned Member for Medway or my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Chichester.
      Mr. Tipping: This has been a wide-ranging debate. Some hon. Members may think that it has ranged too widely. Although the debate has sometimes been emotive, we can be proud of its vigour, and of the light that it has shed in the Chamber. I intend to stick to the narrow parameters of amendment No. 13, and shall perhaps be the only hon. Member to do so.
      As we know, the Bill is a simple one, and will remove hereditary peers from the other place. It is fascinating that, although the Bill focuses on hereditary peers, for the past two and a half or three hours the debate has focused on life peers.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am slightly puzzled. It sounds as though the Minister is winding up, and I am not sure why he should be. Other hon. Members seem to want to speak to the amendments in Committee.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is a matter for the occupant of the Chair.
      Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has much more

      825
      experience in these matters than I do, will know that it is a matter for the Chairman. I look forward to hearing your decision, Mr. Lord.
      The focus has been on life peers and how they should be selected in the interim stage. The other main subject of the debate has been the powers of patronage. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made a strong speech on the subject, describing his amendments as short but perfectly formed. I thought for a moment that he was applying the description to himself. However, the deficiencies in his amendments became clear when he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. If my hon. and learned Friend's amendments were passed, Labour Ministers would not be able to appoint to the interim House, but Conservatives would.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: If amendment No.13 and new clause 17 were both passed, would it not be possible for the prerogative to be exercised by the Appointments Commission? That would not result in the interim House dwindling away as the Minister suggests.
      Mr. Tipping: I listened carefully to the interesting and scholarly speech of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). We are talking about trying to balance the numbers of Labour and Tory peers, but his new clause would result in Tory peers keeping control of the House. He has not done his sums. When we challenged him on how long it would take to achieve equity in the upper House, he did not have the answer. It would take a long time. One of the themes of the debate is that, when the Conservatives are faced with losing influence and power in the upper House, they switch to arguments about how peers should be found for the interim Chamber.
      Mr. Tyrie: It is a shame that the Minister is suggesting that my new clause was an attempt at a party political fix. It was nothing of the sort, despite the mutterings of the Leader of the House. I made it clear that I am sympathetic towards other proposals, which would not necessarily sit with this group of amendments, that would result in roughly equal numbers of Labour and Conservative Members in the upper House. I referred to the possible introduction of a retirement age of 75. I have done my sums on that idea, which would leave Labour with six more Members than the Conservatives. It is a travesty to suggest that I have been engaged in a party political fix.
      Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman may confuse his intention with the effect of his new clause, which would be negligible change. I would have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point had he not made so much play of what he called the Prime Minister's abuse of power. I know that he has consulted the record carefully, but he has not told the full story. Conservative Prime Ministers have used their powers of patronage to a similar extent to the present Prime Minister.
      Mr. Lansley rose—
      Mr. Tipping: I shall not give way any more. I have been generous with my time. I have listened to a great many speeches from Conservaive Members.
      826
      My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley pointed out deficiencies in the amendment. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills had to table a new amendment to make up for those deficiencies. My hon. and learned Friend would say that he was not worried about the technicalities or the drafting, but that he was interested in the big picture—the vision thing. However, the vision thing about which he tried to tell us—as is often his way—was the abuse of patronage by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) was simply wrong to say that the Opposition could appoint by recommendation to the House. Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that?
      Mr. Tipping: If my hon. and learned Friend consults the record tomorrow, he will see that he acknowledged the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. We are aware of the dangers inherent in prime ministerial control of access to the fount of honour. We have suffered from that in the past, and that is why the current Prime Minister—unprecedentedly—has taken steps to reduce his sole powers of patronage.
      Let me remind the Committee of those steps. First, we have committed ourselves not to seek more than broad parity of numbers with the main Opposition party, and to allow proportionate creations for the Liberal Democrats and other parties, including Cross Benchers. That is a smaller share of the overall strength of the House than we proposed in the manifesto, and we will still be in a 2:1 minority in the House.
      Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised that we will not interfere in the details of nominations from the other party leaders or from the Appointments Commission. That is the first time that such a public commitment has been given. Conservative Members may complain, but their record on constitutional change during their 18 years in power can be described only as a black hole.
      Finally, we have undertaken to set up an independent Appointments Commission to make recommendations for Cross-Bench peers. I will not go into the detail of the arrangement now, but there is one issue to which I wish to draw attention. The new body will take over the functions of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in relation to all peerages. That means vetting them for propriety. The standards of propriety in question will be those recommended by Lord Neill in his report on the funding of political parties. The arrangements for ascertaining whether a peerage has in any way been bought will be strengthened. That will apply to all peerages, including those recommended by the party leaders.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) who spoke—or, perhaps, wound up—for the Opposition, spoke at length of the deficiencies in the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, although he was, in principle, sympathetic. He felt that it would not be acceptable to the Government—or, perhaps, to himself—for reasons that he spelled out. At a very late stage, the hon. Gentleman mentioned for the first time new clauses 3, 4 and 5.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset described, quite rightly, new clause 3 as the minimalist position, built on—in a step-ladder approach—by new clauses 4 and 5.

      827
      He tried to persuade us that the appointments body that he would ask the Speaker to set up would be better than the Appointments Commission that we recommend. He said that our Appointments Commission would be set up under the Nolan rules. I remind him that those Nolan rules were introduced by the previous Conservative Government and were strengthened by this Government.
      Mr. Letwin: If the Nolan rules are good enough for the appointment of that commission—and if there is no problem with something appointed by the Prime Minister under the Nolan rules—why not use the Nolan rules to appoint Members of the other place?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Tipping: It remains to be seen whether the Nolan rules can be applied to the body that the hon. Gentleman recommends. It is not clear what accountability would apply to the form of commission proposed in new clause 3. Is Madam Speaker being asked to apply Nolan principles? Will there be a fixed term of membership? What rules will the commission have to follow in selecting names? With the greatest respect to Madam Speaker, has she the necessary resources? I believe that a tried and tested set of procedures, instituted by the Tories and strengthened by us, is preferable to what the new clauses would do.
      Hon. Members of all parties have been gripped tonight by the idea of the interim House. How long is that interim House to remain? Let me remind hon. Members of our manifesto commitment to remove hereditary peers from the second Chamber. We have set up a royal commission with an independent—a Tory—chairman, to report by the end of the year. What the White Paper says is our intention. The royal commission is being asked to report by the end of 1999, to enable the Government to make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament by the time of the general election.
      We are determined to honour our manifesto commitment. We have begun, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, an evolutionary, step-by-step process. I am confident that we can keep to the timetable.
      Change is occurring. There has been a remarkable change in the attitude of Tory Members towards hereditary peers. There has been a change in the pace of debate. There is now a real desire for open debate both with and within the royal commission. Let us have the confidence, after years of struggle, to achieve that change. This time, it is in our grasp, if we take the route that the Government have recommended and reject the amendments and new clauses.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Because of patronage and the current lack of pressure, some of us thought that there would not be a vote on the amendment, as there have not been votes on many other controversial amendments. In case there is a vote, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) appreciates that quite a few of those who will vote for the amendment
      828
      utterly reject his arguments and his scenario for the future. The amendment would achieve what I want to achieve, but not what he wants to achieve.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I cannot think of a better solution than to have the hon. Gentleman voting with me but rejecting all the arguments that I have made.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The last thing that I want is to form a popular front, but, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) pointed out, people might look at the record, and I would not want them to think that I was supporting the hon. and learned Member for Medway because of his absurd arguments.
      The idea that abolishing hereditary peers and putting life peers in their place gets rid of patronage is a load of old codswallop. There is far more patronage involved in appointing life peers than in the succession of hereditary peers.
      If we get rid of hereditary peers and have an elected House instead, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway would like, the Government should appreciate what we are doing to the constitution. I have just come back from Scotland. The House of Commons has always followed the idea that one person should represent an area and be answerable to its people, but now in Scotland people will have a Euro Member, although goodness knows what he is meant to do; a Westminster Member, with no power to handle Scottish affairs; regional Scottish Members, although no one knows what they are meant to do; directly elected Scottish Members; and councillors. It is nonsense. People might have five separate representatives, all of different parties. Instead of trying to deal with people's problems, they will simply blame each other.
      We will not help if, on top of that mess, we tell the people of Glasgow that we want them to elect a senator as well. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Medway, who has great ideas on legal matters, will appreciate that, if we go down that road, we will have an army of politicians and create confusion where we used to have a good system.
      The House of Lords performs the limited job of making the Executive stop and think for a year. Basically, that can be done by the hereditary peers, who in no way try to overturn the political views of the House of Commons. The figures in fact show that more proposals from Conservative Governments have been stopped than proposals from Labour Governments. If we are to abolish that useful, limited constitutional safeguard, it would be better to have no second Chamber at all.
      If we go ahead and have another elected Chamber, it will cost a lot of money and create much confusion. In addition, it will destroy many of the principles of our democracy that have worked well. It is very easy to muck everything up. People should appreciate that our constitution has served us well. I and others will vote for the amendment, but certainly not for the absurd, republican views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
      Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief. The speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary was a classic of new Labour, in that what was being offered was new patronage—a sanitised version of the old patronage. I can understand why he made it, but it was not good enough.

      829
      I have had serious reservations about the direction in which the second Chamber should go. By having a directly elected second Chamber, can we achieve and keep some of the qualities evident in the independence of the present House of Lords? That question has caused me some concern, and I have sometimes wondered whether some form of appointed—or partially appointed—second Chamber might not be sensible.
      However, I am bound to say that the more I have considered the matter, the more convinced I have become that the general thrust of what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) says is correct. I believe that we need an elected second Chamber, and that we should apply ourselves creatively to determining the system of any election that might be held, the timing of that election and the criteria governing it. We must try to ensure that those who go to the second Chamber, which will have more limited functions, will be able to reflect a greater spirit of independence from party control than is evident in this House. That would create a good system of checks and balances for the future.
      On that basis, the hon. and learned Member for Medway has done a great service to the House by providing the vehicle for this debate. He is to be commended for what he has done.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 51, Noes 269.

      Division No. 69]

      [9.39 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Barnes, Harry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bennett, Andrew F

      McAllion, John

      Best, Harold

      McDonnell, John

      Brake, Tom

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Caton, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin

      Chaytor, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Clapham, Michael

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cummings, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Shepherd, Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Fisher, Mark

      Stott, Roger

      Flight, Howard

      Swinney, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Wareing, Robert N

      Grieve, Dominic

      Wise, Audrey

      Hancock, Mike

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Hurst, Alan

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Banks, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Barron, Kevin

      Borrow, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      830

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Grogan, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gunnell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burnett, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cann, Jamie

      Heppell, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hesford, Stephen

      Casale, Roger

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      (Copeland)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Darvill, Keith

      Kidney, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Laxton, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Leslie, Christopher

      Denham, John

      Levitt, Tom

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Linton, Martin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Lock, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Love, Andrew

      Doran, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dowd, Jim

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Drew, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Edwards, Huw

      McLeish, Henry

      Efford, Clive

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McNulty, Tony

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

      McWalter, Tony

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Mallaber, Judy

      Follett, Barbara

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Gerrard, Neil

      Maxton, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Meale, Alan

      Godsiff, Roger

      Merron, Gillian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      831

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Morley, Elliot

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mudie, George

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stringer, Graham

      Pike, Peter L

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Plaskitt, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Powell Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Prescott Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prosser, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quinn Lawrie

      Touhig, Don

      Radice, Giles

      Trickett, Jon

      Rapson Syd

      Truswell, Paul

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roache, Mrs Barbara

      Tyler, Paul

      Rogers, Allan

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooker, Jeff

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rooney, Terry

      Wallace, James

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      White, Brian

      Ruane, Chris

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wills, Michael

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Keith Hill.

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause had been adequately discussed, put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Question agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday 22 February.

      NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That—

      (1) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

      (2) at the sitting on Thursday 25th February, the Committee shall consider the draft instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

      (3) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 25th February, Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2) of the Order for the words 'two and a half of the word 'three'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        RATING AND VALUATION
        That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
        COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY
        That the draft Development Commission (Transfer of Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
        EDUCATION
        That the draft Education (Student Support) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

        EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
        That the draft Education (Student Loans) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
        Question agreed to.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

        REFORM OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
        That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, dated 20th November 1998, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, relating to reform of the Common Market organisations for beef, cereals and milk and for the development of rural development policy in the European Union; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which takes account of the interests of UK producers, consumers and taxpayers alike and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs. which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the UK's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium-term prospect of benefits to developing countries.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
        Question agreed to.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
      Ordered,

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        SCHOOL STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK ACT
        That the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Proposals under section 211 of the Education Act 1996) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1998 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
        That the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
        EDUCATION (INFANT CLASS SIZES) (GRANT) REGULATIONS
        That the Education (Infant Class Sizes) (Grant) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
        NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE
        That the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1999 and National Institute for Clinical Excellence Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

      Yemen
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I shall be grateful if hon. Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the Adjournment debate.
      Mr. Vaz: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the situation in Yemen that has developed over the past two months. The issue is of relevance, not only to the families and friends of those who have been taken hostage or detained in Yemen, but to all those with an interest in the middle east as a whole, and to the British Asian community.
      At the start, I should declare my interest: I am the chairman of the all-party group on Yemen. My parents went to Aden from Bombay as economic migrants; they were part of the immigrant Indian community living in British-occupied south Yemen in the 1950s, and I was born in Aden in 1956. I spent the first nine years of my life there, before leaving with my family to escape the escalating conflict. I was educated at St. Joseph's Convent school in Aden and have wonderful memories of my early childhood in Yemen. They were some of the happiest days of my life—eating sardine sandwiches on the beach in Aden, watching the great ships preparing for the Suez canal. In my wildest dreams, I never envisaged one day speaking on this subject in the British Parliament.
      I returned to Yemen for the first time last year, when I led a delegation of representatives from the travel industry to promote relations between our two countries. In Sana'a, I met President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Ministers of Health, Culture and Justice and the Speaker of the Yemeni Assembly. I also spent a day in Aden and returned to Sana'a by car, without incident.
      Returning to Yemen brought home to me just what investment opportunities the country holds for Britain and the immense good will that exists towards Britain. Much has changed, but Yemen remains a beautiful and special country. It is no wonder that so many people want to visit it and return there even after being taken hostage.
      Yemen is an extremely difficult nation to comprehend, although it is very familiar to British people. I have already mentioned the under-populated south, which was ruled by the British until 1967, and many young men in the 1950s completed their national service at the station there, including, I am told, the father of our Prime Minister. After the British left, south Yemen was taken over by Marxists, while the much more heavily populated north never came under colonial rule.
      The country was united in 1990, but unity was initially not solid, and a civil war broke out in 1994. What is more, in the rugged and mountainous north, the Government's authority is weak, and independent tribesmen seek to control vast areas of the country. That is ideal terrain for hostage-taking, and 132 hostages have been taken in Yemen since 1992.

      835
      The foundation of the recent crisis can be seen in those historical and geographical problems. Before moving on to the crisis, however, I should like to pay tribute to the role played by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, since he came to power in 1978, in maintaining a stable Government in spite of those enormous difficulties and steering the course of reunification. In the past year, he has been aided by Prime Minister Iryani and the democratically elected Assembly.
      The recent crisis, like the country's history, is riddled with complexities. Three sets of hostages have been taken; two groups of people have been arrested and detained; there have been problems concerning people with dual nationality, and there is a melting pot of value systems, ranging from traditional tribal beliefs to rising Islamic awareness
      The crisis began on 28 December, when 16 western hostages were taken. I am sure that I express the sentiments of the whole House when I offer my condolences to the families of Ruth Williamson, Margaret Whitehouse and Peter Rowe, who were killed the following day. Clearly, a number of questions need to be answered about exactly what happened on 29 December and why the rescue attempt went so tragically wrong. I understand that teams from Scotland Yard have been in Yemen since then. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister shed some light on the work that they have been doing, the level of co-operation that they have received from the Yemeni authorities and what, if any, discoveries they have made? How many officers from Scotland Yard are in Yemen and what have they been doing there?
      Just as we offer our condolences to the families of the dead, our thoughts go to the nine British survivors of the rescue attempt, as well as John Brooke and Eddie and Mary Rosser, who were taken hostage in January and later released. No one can imagine what an ordeal it has been for them to have been taken as hostages.
      At the heart of the current crisis is the case of the British men who have been detained in Aden. Confusion seems to have surrounded the case of Gulam Hussain, Sarmad Ahmed, Shahid Butt, Mohssin Ghailan and Malek Nasser since they were first detained on 24 December. What were they doing in Yemen? Why did it take until 7 January for final confirmation to be received that those five men had been detained? Why did it take until 14 January until they were charged and why did not the trial begin until 27 January? What truth is there in the allegations by the five men of torture and sexual abuse?
      In the conversations that I have had with Yemeni Ministers, they have made it clear that allegations of torture are untrue and that they have complied with every reasonable request. However, I should be glad to hear from my right hon. Friend what issues are still outstanding.
      I have also spoken to Gareth Pierce, the lawyer acting for those detained. She has stressed the importance of allowing the detainees access to an independent doctor. What progress can my right hon. Friend report on that issue?
      I should also stress that although the detainees were charged quickly, the trial is proceeding extremely rapidly, perhaps much too rapidly, and, as the House knows, has restarted today. It is important that sufficient time is given for the defendants to prepare their case.
      836
      On 14 January, I met the families of the five men. I do not wish to pre-judge the case of the five men, but the families struck me as honest, decent, ordinary citizens, shocked by what had happened to their loved ones, in search of sympathy—
      It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      Mr. Vaz: The families struck me as shocked by what had happened to their loved ones and in search of sympathy, understanding and answers to their questions about what had happened. They were obviously bewildered by events. They deserve our sympathy. Some of the families are now in Yemen. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the consular officials are doing everything that they can to help the families?
      Since then, three further British citizens have been detained. Shazad Nabi, Ayad Hussein and Mohammed Mustafa Kamal have now been transferred to Aden. That has added further complexity to the case, especially as Mohammed Kamal is only 17 and is the son of Abu Hamza al-Masry, the London Muslim leader, who has made some extraordinary statements. It seems that what happens to them will affect the trial of the other five men. Perhaps the Minister will shed light on what the Foreign Office has been doing in those latest three cases.
      It is highly unusual for a consular case such as this to be imported into British domestic community politics. According to a written answer supplied to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 28 January 1999, Official Report, column 392, there are currently 2,266 British nationals imprisoned overseas—including two of my constituents, who are in gaol in Venezuela. What is different about this case is the fact that the British Muslim community has taken the issue to heart, believing that the Foreign Office and the British Government are less committed to the case of those five men than to other consular cases because the men in question are of Asian origin.
      I commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the way in which he has handled this crisis, and the sensitivity that he has shown to the Yemeni authorities and the British Asian community. In my view, the Foreign Secretary deserves particular praise for the way in which he came to the House on the first day after the Christmas recess to make a statement on the crisis, and for his initiative in speaking to the Yemeni Prime Minister three times in the early stages of the crisis, to impress on him the importance of the British detainees being given full access to doctors and lawyers. I thank my noble friend Baroness Symons for having agreed to meet me four times to brief me on developments, and for meeting the families of the detained men and their lawyers.
      On the allegation of the Foreign Office not acting quickly enough because the men were Asian, I believe that our Foreign Secretary would be the last person in this world to let that happen. He is highly regarded in the Arab world, and his speech last October in Blackpool showed enormous respect and sensitivity to Muslim nations and to the Muslim and Asian communities.
      I shall now discuss what I consider to be the ways in which the crisis can be solved. The main goal must be to ensure that Anglo-Yemeni relations remain intact and that

      837
      the men currently detained in Aden get a fair trial. As I have said, when I visited Yemen last year I was struck by the good will on the part of the Yemenis toward Britain, and by the eagerness of Ministers, from the President down, to discuss openly and frankly the salient issues affecting the middle east. In 1986, trade with Yemen was worth £82.6 million, and Britain has been heavily involved in efforts to redevelop the port of Aden, and to develop the tourism industry. Britain and Yemen obviously have a lot to lose from any straining of relations.
      I place on the record my appreciation of the role played by the excellent Yemeni ambassador to Britain, Dr. Hussein Al-Amri, who understands fully the importance of these relations and has done an enormous amount of work in very difficult circumstances. Any nation, including ours, would be severely tested when world media attention focuses on it on such complex issues as hostage taking, terrorism and fundamentalism. It is amazing how Yemen has coped.
      The Yemeni Government have said that they have acted as they have in order to continue the fight against international terrorism. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that joint co-operation between Britain and Yemen to combat terrorism is vital, and I hope that he will offer his support in the continued fight against it.
      The only way to maintain strong bilateral relations is for contact to be maintained at the highest possible level. We need to bring outstanding matters to a close. Early contact between the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Iryani was extremely important in ensuring that the Britons in Aden were charged, and that the trial got under way. Anglo-Yemeni relations will suffer if this high-level contact is not maintained. I was very pleased to read that a meeting took place between our Prime Minister and the President of Yemen last Monday in Amman at the funeral of King Hussein. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us more about those discussions.
      However, I am puzzled by one point. Britain has strongly advised its citizens to leave Yemen and has evacuated British Council teachers from the country. Yet the German Foreign Minister and Green party leader, Joschka Fischer, has just been to Yemen. If a German Minister is safe in Yemen, why not a British Minister? Our ties with Yemen are much longer and more historic than those of any other country. As the Deputy Foreign Minister Abdullah al-Saidi said:
      "Yemen and Yemenis consider themselves good friends of the British people".
      Secondly, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the trial of the Britons in Yemen must be concluded in a fair and open manner according to the due process of international law. That means that the men who face trial must understand what is happening in the court process and what is happening in terms of their defence. We expect nothing less. The Yemeni ambassador has given me an assurance that the trial will be conducted according to due process. Has my right hon. Friend received those assurances as well?
      In addition, I propose two further means of speeding up efforts for a solution. I reiterate the suggestion that I made to the Foreign Secretary in the House on 11 January: it would be extremely helpful if he sent a special envoy to Sana'a and Aden to supplement diplomatic efforts that
      838
      are already being undertaken. I do not wish to undermine the work that has already been done by Ambassador Victor Henderson and Consul-General David Pearce—I know from the help that they gave to my delegation what an effective team they are. I simply feel that, because of this highly complicated situation, we need a high-profile expert with a solid diplomatic background and knowledge of the middle east, such as a former permanent secretary, to go to Yemen and continue the dialogue.
      Finally, I return to a theme that I have mentioned on other occasions in the House: the need for a new unit in the Foreign Office with specific responsibility for British tourists and other visitors to foreign countries. If such a unit had existed, procedures for dealing with the taking of hostages and the detentions would have been in place and I believe that the crisis could have been handled more smoothly. Families in such situations must be kept informed constantly, as the families of James Miles and Paul Loseby, and of Edgar Fernandes—whose cases I have raised previously—have discovered.
      There is also a need for better administrative streamlining. As I understand it, three of the four Foreign Office Ministers have been involved in the case: my noble Friend, who deals with consular matters; my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who deals with kidnappings; and my right hon. Friend who is in the Chamber tonight and who has geographical responsibility for this region.
      I know how eager the Yemenis are to resolve this crisis without any lasting damage to Anglo-Yemeni relations. We should be equally keen to do so. This is not a relationship of former colonial master and former colony, but one of partnership. I hope to visit Yemen when the time is right—indeed, I was planning to go last week, but I postponed my visit when I had the chance of introducing this Adjournment debate.
      I am confident that there is enough good will on both sides to ensure a speedy solution to the problems. We must make sure that that good will is utilised and built on in a constructive way in order to prevent any new, dramatic and unexpected turn of events from destabilising the situation further. Nothing would please this son of Yemen more than for the country of my birth and my adopted country—where I have spent three quarters of my life—to work together. We are, after all, bound together by history.
      10.9 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and thank him for the way in which he has raised this issue. Hon. Members will have been moved by his descriptions of his early years in Yemen, and we understand his strong affiliation to that country. I wholly agree that the relationship between the United Kingdom and Yemen must be one of partnership: a partnership of equals in which we have shared diplomatic, political, commercial and other links. My hon. Friend is right to say that both sides want that relationship to develop over the next few years. He is also right to say that despite our history, the content of that relationship at present is somewhat thin.
      The trade between the United Kingdom and Yemen added up to only £81 million during the past calendar year, with a massive imbalance towards the

      839
      United Kingdom. We are not major trading partners, and there is surely the potential for much further development. Also, Yemen is not a beneficiary of a substantial international development programme. My hon. Friend will be delighted, however, to hear that the programme, which currently stands at £600,000 a year, is likely to be trebled to £1.8 million by 2000–01. On that basis, at least, our international development involvement in Yemen will become more significant.
      My hon. Friend spoke about the events that have taken place in Yemen since 24 December, and the impact of those events on the relationship between the two countries. He was absolutely right to send his good wishes and those of every hon. Member to the families of Ruth Williamson, Margaret Whitehouse and Peter Rowe. I add the condolences and sympathy of the Government to those expressed by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend asked about the investigations that are taking place with the participation of representatives of the Metropolitan police force. Those investigations are continuing. We hope that the Metropolitan police will be able to produce a report in the not too distant future. They are happy with the co-operation that they have received from the Yemeni authorities and will continue to work with them.
      I stress to my hon. Friend that the remit of the investigation by the Metropolitan police is limited to the events surrounding the hostage-taking and the sad deaths of Ruth Williamson, Margaret Whitehouse and Peter Roe. Their remit does not extend beyond those incidents.
      My hon. Friend dealt with the cases of the five British citizens currently detained in Aden—Gulam Hussain, Sarmed Ahmed, Shahid Butt, Mohssin Ghailan and Malek Nasser. I shall explain to my hon. Friend the role that the Foreign Office plays in such cases. My hon. Friend knows the situation well, but it is always worth while repeating the responsibilities of the Foreign Office.
      We do not have a responsibility for prosecuting or defending particular cases. We cannot act as banisters, solicitors or lawyers on behalf of any UK citizens charged overseas. As my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening remarks, a substantial number of British citizens are held on charges throughout the world.
      We must do two things. First, we must ensure that we have access to British citizens, and that we can maintain contact and links between them, their families and their lawyers. Secondly, we must do what we can to ensure that there is due process—a fair procedure before trial, and a fair trial. Our objectives are thus limited but extremely significant: to carry out our consular responsibilities towards any UK citizen who is detained overseas, and to ensure that there is due process and a fair trial. We are wholly committed to discharging those responsibilities in the present case.
      There has been some suggestion, which my hon. Friend hinted at but then dismissed, that the Foreign Office has been less active in this case than it may otherwise have been. There is implicit in that a suggestion the idea that because we are dealing with five young Muslim British citizens, their treatment and the rights accorded have not been the same as in other cases. Let me lay that totally to rest. We see our responsibility as extending to all British citizens, regardless of their background, colour or
      840
      religion. We will discharge that responsibility to all our citizens. I give a strong personal commitment to my hon. Friend: I assure him that, as long as I am a Foreign Office Minister, I will do everything to ensure that there is parity and equality of treatment.
      My hon. Friend raised a number of points about the way in which we have discharged our consular functions in relation to the five. It may be useful if I set out some of the background information, which will help him to understand what has happened. As he rightly said, the five were arrested on 24 December. On 29 December, Yemeni officials, who were discussing that day's sad killing of four of the 16 tourists taken hostage the day before, mentioned that they had arrested some British passport holders earlier that day. No names or other details were made available to the British embassy or to the staff.
      At that point, British embassy officials asked for further information and for permissiolbn to see whichever British nationals may have been arrested. I re-emphasise to my hon. Friend that we received the first piece of information from the Yemeni authorities, incomplete as it was, five days after the arrest of the individuals. On 29 and 30 December, the British embassy continued to ask the Yemenis for further information about the alleged arrest of British nationals and for access to them, if the report of those arrests were true.
      On 31 December—a week after the arrests had taken place—Mr. Shahid Iqbal telephoned the Foreign Office to report that three British nationals, a dual national and a French national had been arrested in Yemen. He had surnames, but no other details. He undertook to obtain further details and left at the Foreign Office a Birmingham telephone number.
      No further contact was received from Mr. Iqbal. On 4 January, the Foreign Office, through an official, telephoned him. At that stage, full names were obtained and forwarded to the British embassy in Yemen for verification. On 5 and 6 January, the British embassy made repeated inquiries about possible arrests in Yemen of British nationals, asking for confirmation. To labour the point a stage further, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that on 7 January—13 days after the arrests—the Yemeni authorities confirmed that they had indeed carried out the arrests. They provided the names of the individuals and, at that point, the embassy asked for immediate access to the five.
      I stress to my hon. Friend that those 13 days were a crucial period in which the British embassy and the Foreign Office in London were both trying to find out what had happened. The full information, as he will now realise, was not forthcoming from the Yemeni authorities. It took us until 7 January to confirm that five British citizens had been arrested in Yemen.
      It is important in that context to say to my hon. Friend that I am confident that Foreign Office officials—in Yemen and in London—acted properly, with efficiency and with due diligence and speed. However, they could not put pieces of an incomplete jigsaw together, because the vital piece of information was not forthcoming from the Yemeni authorities.
      Thereafter there has been continual contact between our officials in Yemen and the Yemeni authorities, and between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Yemeni Prime Minister. My noble Friend Baroness

      841
      Symons, who represents the Government on consular matters, has met the Yemeni ambassador and the families and representatives of those who have been detained.
      My hon. Friend will also wish to know that I had a meeting on 20 January with leading members of the United Kingdom Muslim community, plus representatives of the families and the lawyer representing the families. The British Government at ministerial and official level have sought information, and have tried to ensure that the due process takes place. I can say with some confidence that that catalogue of events and action by the Foreign Office shows that we have fully discharged our consular responsibility, and have sought to ensure that the individuals involved receive a fair trial. We have also tried to ensure that they have access to a lawyer and to medical advice. They have been visited, and the consular staff can see the five involved.
      We cannot make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of these individuals, and my hon. Friend does not ask us to do so. That is not our task. My hon. Friend is right that these are matters for Yemeni law, and they will be dealt with by due process under the Yemeni legal system. We want to ensure that the due process takes place, and that there is proper regard for the Yemeni constitution.
      Mr. Vaz: Some of the relatives and others wish to travel to Yemen to have contact with the detainees. Is it still the Foreign Office's view that it is unsafe to go to Yemen? If so, are the Government suggesting that more British citizens should be evacuated from Yemen? The ambassador is still there, as are many other British citizens.
      Mr. Fatchett: The ambassador and staff are doing an excellent job. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for their efforts in these trying and difficult circumstances. I wish them well with their task.
      As my hon. Friend knows, we have toughened up our travel advice. We advise people that it would be unwise to travel to Yemen. I think that he would agree that we are wise to provide evidence of the dangers, because recent events suggest that the Foreign Office would be criticised if we did not offer that advice and more British citizens were taken hostage. We are right to offer that advice, and we shall continue to do so.
      Our consular responsibilities for the five, and for the three who have also been charged with offences in Yemen, include ensuring that the due process takes place and that access is allowed. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to carry out those responsibilities.
      My hon. Friend spoke about how these cases are playing in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. That is why I met leaders of the Muslim community in January. and why I have subsequently had a further meeting to discuss a range of issues. I can confidently say that at those meetings, the community leaders recognised the role that the Foreign Office must play and the way in which we have discharged our responsibilities.
      My hon. Friend also referred to terrorism. It would be wholly wrong to imply that these individuals have been involved in any terrorist activities, and neither my hon. Friend nor I will do that. The issues of criminality, guilt or innocence are matters for the court. My hon. Friend is right to say that the United Kingdom and Yemen have a shared interest in defeating terrorism. That is why, last
      842
      September, we introduced new legislation to toughen up our laws on terrorism. We introduced a new range of offences to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a haven from which to organise and plan attacks against Governments and individuals in other countries.
      The new legislation has been welcomed by Governments throughout the world as an earnest sign of the Government's intention to take the issue of terrorism seriously, and we shall continue to take a hard line against terrorist activities. We do so wherever we can, and we share with the Yemeni Government and with other Governments in the region the belief that there should be no home for those who, through their actions, try to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people.
      I get slightly irritated when others around the world say that the United Kingdom is soft on terrorism. I remind those people that we have experienced terrorism in the past two decades, and have faced up to it. We know its evil nature, and we know that it makes victims of the wholly innocent—those who have no political affiliations or axes to grind, but are in the wrong place at the wrong time. We know about terrorism, and the United Kingdom will certainly not be soft on terrorism. I say that not just on behalf of this Government; if ever there were a change of Government in the United Kingdom, I am sure that there would be a similar approach to terrorism.
      My hon. Friend made a number of suggestions about how the Foreign Office could build up relationships with Yemen and deal with the current issues. He spoke of sending an envoy. We have already done that: there is an ambassador. Moreover, we already have a Minister responsible for Yemen—me—and a Foreign Secretary, who has been in touch with the Yemeni Prime Minister on a number of occasions. An additional person would not help in these circumstances. We need to build up our bilateral relations, and to discuss issues in which we have a common interest. What we must never do is create the impression that we are sending an envoy to Yemen to question the Yemeni legal system, and to make judgments about individual cases. That would set a dangerous precedent. What we need to do is what we have done in working towards the objective of establishing individuals' right to a fair trial.
      My hon. Friend said that we should have a special Foreign Office unit to co-ordinate our activities in circumstances such as this. I am always a bit sceptical about the establishment of further units: it seems to me that, when a Department has no other response, it sets up another organisational unit. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we do not need a unit, but that we do need to co-ordinate effectively. The fact that three Ministers are working on the issue is not a sign of inefficiency; it is a sign of the importance that we attach to the issue, and shows that we are able—thanks to great skill on the part of our officials—to co-ordinate their activities, and to ensure that we have an effective co-ordinated policy. I know that is what my hon. Friend wants, and I am not sure that the unit that he suggests would help us to achieve his objective.
      Mr. Vaz: I understand that our Prime Minister met the President of Yemen in Amman during the funeral of King Hussein. Could any part of that discussion reflect on the issues that we are discussing today?
      Mr. Fatchett: Yes, to the extent that the meeting took place, but it took place on the margins of King Hussein's funeral, and obviously people's minds were on that occasion rather than on other issues. Contact was made, but it was not a substantive occasion on which the specific issues to which my hon. Friend has referred could be discussed.
      My hon. Friend has shown a keen understanding of, and commitment to, his country of birth. Yemen has a good friend in the House of Commons, and in my hon.
      844
      Friend, who raised difficult issues in a sensitive way. I thank him for that. I hope that I have been able to give him detailed information that will enable him to conclude that, although we must deal with a number of difficult issues, once they have been resolved we can continue to build up bilateral relations between the two countries.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Whipps Cross-Redbridge Relief Road
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 252, if he will require from the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency an explanation for the cause of the delays and cost arrears in respect of the Whipps Cross-Redbridge Relief Road; and if he will publish this explanation. [70070]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. David Amess, dated 11 February 1999:

  The Minister for Transport in London has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Contract 4 of the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road. I am replying in his absence from the office.

  The start on this contract was initially delayed by protest action and, as I said in my last letter, the procurement and installation of additional specialist mechanical and electrical equipment has proved difficult.

  The increase in costs is due to protester action and increases in statutory undertakers costs. The additional mechanical and electrical works required for the safe operation of the George Green tunnel also cost more than originally anticipated.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will publish its new draft guidance on preparing regional planning guidance. [71422]

  Mr. Caborn
  Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 on "Regional Planning" will be published on Monday 15 February.

  Copies will be placed in the Library and made available in the Vote Office.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of accommodation and internal travel for the Minister for the Environment and those who accompanied him to the Antarctica Treaty meeting in Antarctica. [67977]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: Travel costs from New Zealand to Antarctica and return, internal travel and accommodation costs in Antarctica were paid for by the New Zealand Government.
  600
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many(a) civil servants and (b) political advisers accompanied the Minister for the Environment to the Antarctica Treaty meeting in Antarctica; and what was the total cost of their airfares; [67978]

  (2) what was the cost of the flights for the Minister for the Environment to attend the Antarctica Treaty meeting in Antarctica; and in what class he travelled. [67979]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: I attended an informal meeting of Ministers and senior Government officials from Antarctic Treaty Nations at the invitation of the New Zealand Government. Some 24 countries were represented. The main focus of the meeting was to look at the way the continent has been affected by environmental changes from climate change to ozone depletion. I was accompanied by one civil servant. No political adviser accompanied me.

  The cost of the two return business class flights to New Zealand was £8,709. Flight costs from New Zealand to Antarctica were paid by the New Zealand Government.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what use the Minister for the Environment made of RAF aircraft to travel to and from the Antarctica Treaty meeting in Antarctica. [67980]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: None.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 335, if he will list (a) the departure and arrival points for the RAF plane and helicopter flights on (i) 3 May 1997, (ii) 23 July 1997, (iii) 22 January 1998, (iv) 23 March 1998 and (v) 26 September 1998 and (b) the RAF units to which the planes or helicopters were attached. [69098]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The information requested is in the table.

  Departure point

  Arrival point

  RAF Unit

  3 May 1997

  Wembley

  Kensington Palace

  N.32 Squadron

  23 July 1997

  Northolt

  Manchester Airport

  N.32 Squadron

  2 January 1998

  Northolt

  Riga

  N.32 Squadron

  23 March 1998

  Humberside

  Brussels

  N.32 Squadron

  Airport Brussels

  Northolt

  26 September 1998

  Stanstead

  Blackpool

  N.32 Squadron

  Ministers are required under the Ministerial Code to always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.

  In 1997–98 this Government spent £6.1 million on Ministers' visits overseas. The spend on overseas visits between April and December 1998 is £4 million. This compares to £7.8 million and £6.9 million for the last two years of the previous administration.

  Waste Management Licences
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications by operators to surrender waste management licences in each of the last three years have been(a) made and (b) granted. [70211]

  Mr. Meale
  The figures for applications made to the Environment Agency under section 39 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are as follows:

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–991,3

  Applications made under section 39 of the 1990 Act

  2—

  201

  247

  Applications accepted under section 39 of the 1990 Act

  2—

  128

  109

  Applications rejected under section 39 of the 1990 Act

  2—

  10

  2

  1 1 April-31 March

  2 No reliable figures are available for 1996–97. Following the transfer of responsibility from waste regulation authorities the central collection of statistics by the Environment Agency commenced in 1997–98.

  3 For the first 9 months of the year

  Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that British haulage operators do not face unfair competition as a result of tax increases proposed on vehicles running at an 11.5 tonne drive axle weight on roads in Britain. [70103]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 681–702, vehicle excise duty rates for goods vehicles with 11.5 tonne axle weights will be set to discourage strongly the use of such vehicles, in view of the additional road damage that they cause. The Integrated Transport White Paper stated that the Government would seek to encourage the use of goods vehicles with a maximum weight of 41 tonnes on 6 axles, which have the same payload as 40 tonnes on 5 axles but cause significantly less road wear.

  The Government firmly believe that the best way to help industry, including hauliers, is to create a climate of sustainable economic growth and long-term investment in business. The last Budget included a number of general measures from which hauliers could benefit: main corporation tax will be reduced to 30 per cent. from 1 April 1999, and small companies' corporation tax rate will be cut to 20 per cent. from 1 April 1999.

  Local Government Reform
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the encouragement his Department is giving to local authorities to consult with the public in connection with the White Paper on local government reform. [70377]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our local government White Paper makes it clear that the Government attach the highest importance to councils consulting local people as they take forward their plans to modernise. We shall shortly 602
  publish for consultation a draft Bill to transform the political management and ethical framework of councils. We expect all councils to lead a full local debate on these issues in their area.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the expenditure was on press, radio and television awareness advertising to warn of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning for the last five and the current financial years. [70366]

  Mr. Meale
  Estimated figures for the Government's spend on press, radio, TV and other forms of Carbon Monoxide awareness material for the last five and current financial years are given in the table.

  £

  Financial Year

  Expenditure

  1993–94

  10k

  1994–95

  1m

  1995–96

  600k

  1996–97

  1.25m

  1997–98

  238k

  1998–99

  270k

  The peaks in expenditure in 1994–95 and 1996–97 are explained by the major TV, film and national press advertising campaigns mounted in those years. Total spending for the period is approaching £3.5 million pounds. In addition the gas supply industry has assisted in this awareness-raising effort by including advice with gas bills mailed to consumers.

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths occurred as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning in houses of multi-occupation in the period 1993 to 1998. [70368]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no specific records available for deaths from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

  However, I can advise my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) record all gas-related deaths from CO poisoning, and whether they occur in rented or owner-occupied housing.

  On average HSE have recorded 30 deaths each year since 1993. Of these, approximately one third occurred in rented accommodation.

  HSE's records do not include no-gas related CO deaths (such as those caused by CO inhalation from solid fuel) which do not fall within the scope of gas safety legislation enforced by HSE.

  Essential Car Use
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he received on possible exemptions from charges for essential car users in response to his consultation paper, "Breaking the Logjam". [70727]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As at 11 February 1999, my Department has received 36 responses to "Breaking the Logjam", of which 18 raised the issue of exemptions from
  603
  charges for essential car users. The issue has also been raised in general correspondence on a number of occasions. The closing date for responses to the consultation paper is 31 March 1999.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has assessed that genetically modified crops have caused(a) deaths and (b) health damage to humans. [70754]

  Mr. Meale
  I am not aware of any evidence that genetically modified crops have caused(a) deaths or (b) health damage to humans.

  Aggregates
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on what date London Economics completed its field work for the second research contract into the environmental costs and benefits of the supply of aggregates; [71704]

  (2) on what date he received the final conclusions of the second research contract carried out by London Economics into the environmental costs and benefits of the supply of aggregates; [71705]

  (3) on what date he communicated the final conclusions of the second research contract carried out by London Economics into the environmental costs and benefits of the supply of aggregates to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [71706]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The fieldwork was completed on Friday 5 February. London Economics are preparing their final report which will include the conclusions of the project. We have not yet received the final conclusions and have therefore not communicated these to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Housing Associations (Rents)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the housing associations identified by the Housing Corporation as having rents above their recommended levels and in each case the percentage by which their average rents exceed the Housing Corporation's recommended levels. [71139]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation's requirement that year-on-year rent increases by registered social landlords (RSLs) should not exceed RPI+1 per cent. came into effect from 1 April 1998.

  Published data on RSL rent increases relate to 1997–98, the year before the Corporation's performance standard became operative. The information is set out in a Corporation research publication (Source 32) a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Rent increases are shown for individual RSLs with more than 250 homes in ownership or management.

  The Corporation has recently visited a number of RSLs with forecast rent increases in 1998–99 above RPI+1 per cent. as well as some which had high outlying rent levels compared to other RSLs as at 31 March 1998. The purpose of these visits was to establish the reasons for the rent variations and whether
  604
  strategies were in place to achieve compliance with the Corporation's performance standards. The result of these investigations will be published shortly by the Corporation. I will ensure a copy is placed in the Library.

  London Underground (Consultants Fees)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the total fees his Department has paid to date to consultants engaged in the financial and operational restructuring of London Underground; what additional sums he expects to pay consultants on this work; which consultants have been employed on the restructuring project; and if he will make a statement on progress made so far with the project. [71179]

  Dr. Reid
  The Department has not paid any money to consultants engaged in the financial and operational restructuring of London Underground. However, London Transport has spent money on such consultants and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212. It is not normal practice to publish forecasts of total costs, for the good reason that publicising such information could undermine the public sector's ability to manage the costs of advisers.

  The main consultants employed by London Transport are:

  PricewaterhouseCoopers (financial)

  Freshfields (legal)

  Ove Amp and Partners (engineering)

  Arthur Andersen (operations entity design)

  PA Consulting (Infrastructure entities design and financial modelling)

  Horngold and Hill (project management)

  Richard Ellis (property)

  Sedgwick (insurance)

  Bacon & Woodrow (pensions)

  Work on restructuring London Underground into one operations entity and three infrastructure entities is proceeding. London Transport expect to invite expressions of interests from potential bidders shortly.

  Millennium Dome (Transport)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the contingency plans presented to his Department by London Underground last month for access to the Millennium Dome, in the event of the Jubilee Line extension not being open on time. [71419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have, through my Millennium Access Co-ordination Group, recently examined in detail London Underground's proposed contingency plans to manage problems on any of the main transport links to the Dome. We are now close to endorsing their proposals, but I have asked London Underground to undertake further work on certain aspects before they formally move to the next stage of mobilising the plans. A summary of the finalised plans will be placed in the Library as soon as this further work has been completed and the plans have been formally endorsed.
  605

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls exist on the trade in endangered species between states of the European Union. [71418]

  Mr. Meale
  The trade in endangered species is regulated by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) within the European Union. Certificates are required to enable the sale or commercial use of species listed in Annex A of the Regulation and to allow the movement of wild taken specimens of these species. Certificates are also required to enable the re-export of CITES specimens by other EU Member States and owners of CITES specimens may at any time be required to provide evidence to confirm that these were lawfully imported or acquired.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make an assessment of how his policy on investment in the railway infrastructure by Railtrack is affected by Railtrack's policy on dividend payments to shareholders. [71494]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  While recognising that Railtrack is a private sector company and must make a profit, the Government have made it clear that they are not convinced that enough of Railtrack's profits are being invested back into the network. Railtrack receives substantial public subsidy through the access charging regime. We need to be sure that the taxpayer is getting proper value for money.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the best value regime will apply to the component parts of the GLA. [71105]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Bill applies the best value regime to both the Greater London Authority, so far as it exercises its functions through the Mayor, and the four functional bodies which will deliver the main London-wide services (Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority, and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority).

  The Bill also allows for the Secretary of State to provide, by Order, for the GLA to be a best value authority in relation to specified functions of the Authority which it does not exercise through the Mayor, and specified functions which are not functions of the Authority but are functions of another best value authority.

  The Secretary of State may also specify, by Order, modifications to the way in which best value would apply to these functions. Any such Orders would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of GLA expenditure which will be(a) self-financed and (b) met by grants. [71107]
  606
  Mr. Raynsford
  In the White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" published on 25 March 1998, we estimated that the annual costs of the Mayor, Assembly, their support staff and some central services would be about £20 million a year. We made it clear that the Government had decided to meet most of the cost themselves through grant and that London council tax payers would contribute about three pence a week on a Band D council tax bill.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish an indicative budget for the GLA setting out(a) the component budgets, (b) any central support costs and (c) income from (i) grants, (ii) council tax and (iii) charges. [71106]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will publish the GLA's budget for 2000–01, including the information requested, following the local government finance settlement in February 2000. Publication of later years budgets will be a matter for the Mayor.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations and on what timetable his Department is undertaking to inform the preparation of the GLA's first budget. [71108]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The GLA will not exist at the start of the financial year 2000–01, so their budget for that year will be set by the Secretary of State. Detailed transitional arrangements for the GLA's first year budget have yet to be settled. My Department will be consulting interested parties widely over the coming months, to enable the GLA's budget for 2000–01 to be prepared in provisional form by the end of November 1999 and finalised by the end of February 2000, in line with the timetable for local government finance generally.

  Funerals
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions his Department has held with(a) the Confederation of Burying Authorities and (b) the National Association of Memorial Masons regarding changes to legislation affecting funeral arrangements; [71502]

  (2) when he proposes to reply to the letter from the National Association of Memorial Masons sent to him last November. [71503]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No discussions have yet been held. But my Department will discuss with both the Federation of Burying Authorities and the National Association of Memorial Masons the suggested legislation. I have now written to the National Association of Memorial Masons confirming the assurances which they received from my Department in December that they would be included in the discussions.

  Norwegian Aviation Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if agreement has been reached with the Norwegian Government concerning the liability of British airlines to pay Norwegian aviation tax; and if he will make a statement. [70940]
  607
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government believe that the tax on aviation fuel, introduced by Norway on 1 January 1999, is in breach of the UK/Norway Air Services Agreement, signed in Oslo on 26 January 1979, which exempts aviation fuel for international flights from tax. Officials wrote to the Norwegian authorities on 4 January drawing attention to this apparent breach and asking them to rescind the tax. I understand that the Norwegian Government are currently reviewing the position, in the light of this and other similar representations received.

  In principle, the Government are in favour of an aviation fuel tax, but we believe this should be agreed at international level. Action by individual states or by groups of states would infringe existing international agreements, distort airline competition and could have environmental disbenefits.

  Bus Services (Fuel Duty)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for rebate of fuel duty in respect of bus services. [71739]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The eligibility criteria for fuel duty rebate are reviewed from time to time.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received urging him to include bus services within the fuel duty rebate where they are specifically designed to convey pupils to school. [71740]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received very few representations on this matter. Bus services specifically designed to convey only pupils to school, rather than the general public, are not eligible for fuel duty rebate. However, services provided or secured by a local education authority are eligible for rebate providing that seats on the vehicles concerned are normally available to members of the general public and are regularly used by them.

  Vehicle Fuel Bills
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the average annual fuel bill for(a) privately owned motor vehicles, (b) company cars and (c) commercial vans and lorries. [71665]

  Dr. Reid
  I regret that information has not been published in the form requested, although related information on the use of vehicles and expenditure is available from a number of published sources.

  Information on the relative mileage of company and private cars is available from the national Travel Survey, and published in "Focus on Personal Travel", 1998 edition. The most recent estimates are that private cars average 8.3 thousand miles per year compared to company cars' 22.6 thousand. However, on average only 11.4 thousand of that mileage is for business purposes, the remainder being for private purposes.

  Information on average mileage and fuel consumption estimates are published in The Transport of Goods by Road for heavy goods vehicles, and in The Survey of
  608
  Small Commercial Vehicles for smaller vans and lorries. Information on expenditure on private motoring is available from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  However, I will undertake to use the relevant sources to provide estimates in the form requested and write to the Hon. Member. I will arrange for copies of the letter to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the Government's decision on the status and future of British Waterways. [71947]

  Mr. Meale
  An announcement on the future for British Waterways will be made on Thursday 18 February. Copies of all the relevant documents will be placed in the Library of the House on that day.

  Raptors
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in assessing the impact of raptor numbers on game bird and racing pigeon interests; and what future work is planned. [71948]

  Mr. Meale
  In an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 14 January 1998,Official Report, column 229, my predecessor reported on the work of the Raptor Working Group which was set up in 1995 to investigate this matter.

  In the last 12 months, the Group has taken forward the programme of work outlined in the Parliamentary Answer. It has concentrated on formulating possible solutions to the conflicts arising between certain birds of prey and game and pigeon interests. The Group submitted an interim report to Ministers in November 1998.

  The Working Group intends to complete this year its programme of work which will include the following:
  to consider the results and implications of the 1998 national survey of hen harriers; assess the results and implications of the research on raptor predation of red grouse as influenced by moorland management practices; review the findings of the Langholm management trial; assess the results of the research on interactions between racing pigeons and birds of prey and consider practical mechanisms for the resolution of any problem in this area; review outputs from Scottish Natural Heritage's Moorland Working Group and other fora; consider means to assess why illegal killing of birds is still prevalent.

  It will then produce a final report and recommendations to Ministers in late 1999.

  Ports Policy
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's ports policy. [71995]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government look to the ports industry to play an important role in the development of their integrated transport policy. This will involve the promotion of environmental sustainable transport and the regeneration of local communities in which ports have traditionally made a contribution.
  609
  We believe that all ports should be publicly accountable for their statutory powers and duties. Accountability must become a much more open process than at present, and shared with all stakeholders, not just users.

  Safety cannot be left to chance. Lives and property must be protected. So, too, must port environments because many port facilities are close to important and sensitive habitats. There must be a more considered approach to port safety if acceptable standards are to be achieved throughout the industry.

  We must ensure that trust ports fulfil their obligations to all the interests entrusted to them. A separate consultation paper has been issued on these proposals and responses are now being considered. The Government believe, however, that trust port status confers special obligations on these ports to operate openly and with full regard to the interests of their local communities. Without open accountability, it is not clear how fully this is achieved; the evidence suggests that in many cases it is not.

  The Department is preparing a comprehensive ports policy paper and an invitation to comment has been released today. I have placed a copy of the consultation document in the Library.

  Development Plans
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the draft revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 on development plans. [72141]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce the publication tomorrow of a fully revised public consultation draft of PPG12 on Development Plans.

  Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he proposes for the Crown Prosecution Service's cash and running cost limits for 1998–99. [71998]

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class VIII Vote 4 will be increased by £1,007,000 from £228,926,000 to £229,933,000 and the gross running costs limit for Class VIII Vote 4 will be increased by £1,007,000 from £220,920,000 to £221,927,000.

  The cash limit increase of £1,007,000 consists of an increase of £1,300,000 and a decrease of £293,000. The increase is required to fund the early departure costs of senior lawyers who are leaving the CPS on structural grounds as a result of implementing the move to a new 42 Area structure. The decrease results from the need to transfer £227,000 to the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of the balance of the cost of the Glidewell review and a transfer of £66,000 to the Home Office, which represents a CPS contribution towards the cost of Integrating Business and Information Systems in the Criminal Justice system (IBIS) initiative. The increases
  610
  will be offset by transfers and a change to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals there are to change the 1998–99 cash limit or running cost limit for the work of HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor. [71999]

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class VIII Vote 6 will be reduced by £411,000 from £6,257,000 to £5,846,000. The gross running costs will be increased by £771,000 from £26,763,000 to £27,534,000 whilst the running cost limit will be increased by £529,000 from £8,031,000 to £8,560,000.

  The running costs limit increase is partially due to initial early retirement costs (£350,000) associated with the closure of the Government Property Lawyers' Agency which was announced to Parliament on 11 November 1998. This will be met from end year flexibility provision as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36. The increase is also due to the residual costs of the Crown Prosecution Service Review (£227,000) and the costs associated with the extension of powers relating to Unduly Lenient Sentences (£7,000) falling on this Vote. These will be offset by PES transfers from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office respectively. A further increase in running costs is due to classification changes of European Fast Streamers income and VAT refunds.

  The reduction in the cash limit is due to the increase in running costs being more than offset by lower VAT payment to Customs and Excise (£900,000), greater than expected VAT refunds on contracted out services (£55,000) and receipts from various Government Departments for services provided by the Lawyers' Management Unit (£40,000).

  The increases will be offset by transfers and charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Overseas Commitments
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to tackle problems of overstretch, following the increase in the United Kingdom's overseas defence commitments. [70394]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 4. The matter of overstretch is very carefully considered when operational commitments are entered into.
  611

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71445]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence Press Office issues all press notices on defence policy matters. For the period in question it has issued the following number:

  Number

  1990

  136

  1991

  145

  1992

  306

  1993

  186

  1994

  178

  1995

  147

  1996

  170

  1997

  231

  1998

  333

  In addition to the MOD Press Office, the various regional military public relations offices issue press notices covering routine local issues, as well as copies of centrally issued press releases which they may consider to be relevant to their region. Precise figures for those press notices issued by all of the regional offices, which take account of such "duplicate" releases, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The two Defence Agencies which issue their own press notices are the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) and the Met Office. The number of press notices they have issued in the period are as follows:

  DERA

  Met Office

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  —

  32

  1992

  —

  43

  1993

  —

  62

  1994

  —

  24

  1995

  20

  52

  1996

  23

  54

  1997

  13

  49

  1998

  14

  44

  Press notices covering appointments to MOD-sponsored non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are issued centrally by the MOD press office. NDPBs do issue their own press notices from time to time covering routine matters; complete records are not held centrally, however, for the period in question.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71460]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communication Service are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the 612
  Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House. For the period in question, the cost to my Department of distributing press releases centrally was approximately £31,000. Figures covering the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Met Office and non-departmental public bodies are not separately identified within their budgets.

  Iraq
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the cost in each year of the enforcement of the no fly zones over the(a) North and (b) South of Iraq. [71388]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly-zones over Iraq began in 1991 and 1992 respectively. The annual additional costs of each operation since that time are as follows:

  £ million

  North

  South

  1991–92

  2.6

  —

  1992–93

  4.2

  5.3

  1993–94

  9.6

  6.5

  1994–95

  10.5

  4.6

  1995–96

  5.9

  4.7

  1996–97

  2.3

  4.1

  1997–98

  2.3

  3.4

  1998–99

  3.2

  7.6

  The figures for 1998–99 are estimates. The Southern no-fly-zone estimate in this year takes account of the deployment of RAF aircraft to Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the legal authority for the imposition and enforcement of the no fly zones over the(a) North and (b) South of Iraq. [71387]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Coalition patrols of the Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq are in support of UNSCR 688. They are justified under international law on the basis of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. They prevent Saddam Hussein from using his air force against the Iraqi people in the north and south and enable us to monitor the actions of his forces on the ground. In responding to the threat from Iraqi air-defence systems, coalition aircraft have responded in self defence in a proportionate manner. This action is justified under international law on the basis of self defence.

  RAF Flights (Staverton)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what risk assessment he has carried out or has received from the RAF of flights over the North Cotswolds to the North East of Staverton Airport in Gloucestershire; what information he has received from the RAF regarding the precautions they are taking to avoid mid-air collisions in that air space; what information the RAF supplies about its flights to the authorities at Staverton Airport; what minimum height above ground level is permitted for(a) RAF fighters,(b) Hercules transport planes and (c) Chinook helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [71194]
  613
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Safety in the air is a key priority in all military flying activities. No specific risk assessments have been carried out in the area north-east of Staverton Airport, but my Department has carried out a detailed study into the effectiveness of 'see and avoid', the primary means of collision avoidance in open airspace. The results of this study were published on 2 February 1998,Official Report, column 469, and copies of the report placed in the Library of the House.

  There is no requirement for the authorities at Staverton Airport to receive information about military low-flying sorties outside their aerodrome traffic zone; military aircraft wishing to pass through the zone must, however, seek permission from Staverton Airport Air Traffic Control before doing so.

  The minimum separation distance for RAF fighters and Hercules aircraft between themselves and the ground, any structure or any other aircraft except those in the same formation is 250 ft. Chinooks are permitted to fly down to ground level.

  Submarines and Fishing Boats
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to modify the regulations contained in the Submarine/Fishing Vessel Interaction Code of Practice; and if he will make a statement. [66470]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The Code of Practice is regularly improved by modifications following annual Fishing Industry Liaison Meetings of representatives from the Fishing Industry and Government Departments.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many allegations concerning a breach of the Submarine/Fishing Vessel Interaction Code of Practice have been brought to his notice in the past 15 months; and if he will make a statement. [66471]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: Two confirmed incidents have been reported to Ministers and I am aware of three further allegations, which were later shown not to be breaches of the Code. No damage or injury has resulted from any incident since the full implementation of the Code of Practice and it continues to provide an effective safety mechanism.

  RN Base Faslane
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 460–61, on RN Base Faslane, on what occasions radiation supervisors have been required to carry out the work of radiation monitors in each of the last five years; and on how many occasions all duty supervisors were carrying out such work. [69086]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are no prescribed occasions when a Supervisor has to carry out the work of a monitor, however, supervisors can enter radiological areas as part of their duties. The number of occasions when duty supervisors carried out the work of a monitor cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.614
  However, the number of times supervisors have entered radiological areas in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1994: 257

  1995: 219

  1996: 264

  1997: 184

  1998: 38.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 331, on replies to parliamentary questions, how many times Exemption 2 in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information was used by his Department in replying to questions on the subject of the Territorial Army, to justify withholding information in the last 12 months. [69397]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Once.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in his Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70784]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

  RAF Innsworth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with personnel at RAF Innsworth, Gloucestershire, about plans to reduce the level of policing of the MOD area at Innsworth; and if he will make a statement. [70892]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. However, policing arrangements at RAF Innsworth have been reviewed recently. On present plans, the present complement will be retained for the next two years. Any proposals for subsequent changes will be subject to consultation in the usual way.

  RAF Brize Norton
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the implications are for(a) staffing and (b) resources at RAF Brize Norton of (i) replacing the fleet of VC-10s and Tristars and (ii) the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme; and if he will make a statement; [71576]

  (2) what proposals he has under consideration for the transfer of staff and resources from RAF Brize Norton to Boscombe Down as a result of the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme. [71578]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The MOD is in only the initial stages of discussions with a wide range of organisations interested in bidding PFI solutions to meet the requirement for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  615
  (FSTA). We have yet to receive any proposals. It is, accordingly, far too soon to speculate on implications for any particular location.

  Defence Estate Organisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Defence Estate Organisation for 1999–2000. [71905]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We expect to be able to announce the key 1999–2000 performance targets for Defence Estate Organisation at the end of next month.

  Army Cadet Force (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Army Cadet Force detachment at Chorley will be accommodated in the future. [72142]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I am pleased to announce that, following consultation with the territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Association, I have decided to reprovide the facilities currently afforded to the Army cadet Force detachment at Chorley, within the curtilage of the Territorial Army centre in which they are currently based. This will provide the cadets with up to date facilities and minimise disruption over the period of change. The remainder of the site will be disposed of, as originally announced, once the facilities for the cadets have been provided. We will, of course, liaise with the local authorities on this matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many long-stay patients there are in medical wards in(a) Antrim Hospital and (b) Whiteabbey Hospital. [70200]

  Mr. McFall
  There were 10 patients in medical wards in Antrim Hospital and 6 patients in medical wards in Whiteabbey Hospital who, on 9 February 1999, had been in-patients for more than 4 weeks.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how long the longest-stay patient has been in a medical ward in(a) Antrim and (b) Whiteabbey hospitals. [70202]

  Mr. McFall
  The patient with the longest stay in a medical ward in Antrim Hospital was admitted on 16 November 1998. The patient with the longest stay in a medical ward in Whiteabbey hospital was admitted on 1 July 1996.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many long-stay patients assessed as being ready for discharge to nursing home care are in medical wards in(a) Antrim Hospital and (b) Whiteabbey Hospital. [70207]

  Mr. McFall
  There were 4 patients in medical wards in Antrim and 2 patients in medical wards in Whiteabbey who, at 9 February 1999, were assessed as ready for discharge to nursing or residential home care.
  616

  Nursing Care (Costs)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average weekly cost of providing nursing care in(a) private sector accommodation and (b) a hospital in Northern Ireland. [70201]

  Mr. McFall
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  No separate assessment has been made centrally of the cost of providing nursing care in private sector accommodation.

  Costing information on providing "nursing care" in a hospital is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish her Department's collation and assessment of responses to all the Government's public consultations. [69767]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Service First Unit in Northern Ireland proposes to publish a Northern Ireland version of the guide, "How to conduct written consultation exercises" for Departments and Agencies in late March 1999. The guide will include a provision that, where circumstances permit, a summary of views and information collected from a consultation exercise will be made available, unless the respondents have requested confidentiality for their comments.

  Portadown
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions have been made in relation to illegal pro-Orange Order demonstrations in Portadown since July 1998. [70212]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 135 arrests and 33 persons convicted during the period July 1998 to January 1999 in connection with illegal parades in Portadown.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been(a) arrested and (b) charged in connection with the destruction of Catholic-owned businesses in Portadown since July 1998. [70209]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no persons arrested or charged to date in connection with the destruction of Catholic-owned businesses in Portadown, where the religion of the owner is known, since July 1998.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many arrests have been made in connection with the intimidation of Catholic families in the Craigwell area of Portadown by pro-Orange Order demonstrators. [70301]

  Mr. Ingram
  One person has been arrested for incitement to hatred at Craigwell Avenue. Three persons were arrested at Corcrain Bridge, close to Craigwell Avenue, for Public Order offences. Twenty one persons were arrested resulting from a riot situation at Corcrain Bridge/Charles Street.
  617

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if paramilitary beatings are included in the factors which she has to take into account in determining whether a paramilitary organisation has ended violence permanently. [70144]

  Mr. Ingram
  Yes. Parliamentary beatings are a relevant consideration, among others, in coming to the judgment the Secretary of State makes under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the factors which she will take into account in determining whether to invoke her powers to review the list of organisations under section 3(10) of the Act in respect of an organisation not specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 which is involved in paramilitary beatings, mutilations and shootings. [70135]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State is under a duty from time to time to review the list of organisations which are specified organisations. In forming her belief whether the criteria in section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 are satisfied in relation to an organisation not yet specified, she takes into account the factors set out in section 3(9) of that Act and other factors relevant in the circumstances.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports she has received from the RUC on the involvement of members of paramilitary organisations not specified by order under section 3 (8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 in paramilitary beating, mutilations and shootings in Northern Ireland; and what assessment she has made of these reports. [70139]

  Mr. Ingram
  Reports are frequently received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary on these attacks. The Secretary of State takes them into account in assessing the state of ceasefires under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what factors she will take into account in determining whether paramilitary beatings carried out by organisations not specified by order under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 constitute a breach of the ceasefires; [70136]

  (2) what factors she takes into account in reaching the judgment that a paramilitary ceasefire is complete and unequivocal. [70145]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes into account the factors set out in section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and such other factors as are relevant in the circumstances to the judgment she makes, for the purposes of section 3(8) of that Act, as to whether a ceasefire has been established, and is being maintained, which is complete and unequivocal.

  Prisoners
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of a618
  qualifying offence set out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 have been released from prison under the Accelerated Release Scheme. [70143]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, there have been 241 prisoners released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. This is drawn from information received by the Secretary of State as at 9 February 1999 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons released from prison in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, were serving(a) a fixed term sentence of at least five years and (b) imprisonment for life. [70142]

  Mr. Ingram
  In order to be eligible for release under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, persons must be serving fixed term sentences of 5 years or more, or imprisonment for life. All those released fall into these categories. A breakdown is given.

  This is drawn from information received by the Secretary of State as at 9 February 1999 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release.

  Life sentence/fixed term

  Total

  Lifers

  74

  Fixed term

  167

  Grand total

  241

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of qualifying offences will be eligible for accelerated release from prison under the terms set out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [70224]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, there have been 241 prisoners released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, with a further 150 prisoners who have successfully applied to the Sentence Review Commission and who have received Substantive Determinations with a release date in the future. This gives a total of 391 eligible prisoners. This is drawn from information received by the Secretary of State as at 9 February 1999 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of a scheduled offence, including murder, and serving a fixed term sentence of at least five years will still be in prison two years from the date of the commencement of the Accelerated Release Scheme set out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [70141]

  Mr. Ingram
  Persons eligible for consideration for the Accelerated Release Scheme who will still be in prison two years from the date of the commencement of the Accelerated Release Scheme will include:those who have not applied to the Sentence Review Commission
  those who, although eligible to apply, and having made application, have failed to satisfy the criteria for release
  those who at the second anniversary of the commencement of the Scheme will not have served the minimum period required under Section 10(7) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
  619
  At this point in time it is not possible to quantify how many eligible persons may still be in prison on the date in question.

  Security Arrangements
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she has had on the normalisation of security arrangements in Northern Ireland with those Northern Ireland parties represented in the Assembly. [70269]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. Individual normalisation measures are operational decisions for the Chief Constable to take in the light of his assessment of the threat at the time and the advice of the General Officer Commanding. Local MPs are consulted as appropriate. The Secretary of State is responsible for developing the Government's overall strategy and has not had discussion with Northern Ireland parties represented in the Assembly on the strategy paper she intends to publish soon.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the removal of security installations in Northern Ireland since 10 April 1998. [70274]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 10 April 1998, nine security installations (two sangars and seven Permanent Vehicle Checkpoints) have been demolished, one Army Base has been vacated and is being demolished and seven Patrol Bases have been vacated and closed down.

  The decisions to demolish and vacate these installations were based on the operational assessment of the Chief Constable consistent with the threat level.

  The following are the nine installations which have been demolished:
  Sangar at Crumlin road, Belfast and the Hill top sangar overlooking the former PVCP on the main Belfast-Dublin road at Cloghogue, Newry; and
  Permanent Vehicle Checkpoints at Bessbrook (3), Aughnacloy, The Hump, Strabane, Muff, Londonderry and Letterkenny road, Londonderry.

  The Fort Whiterock Army base in West Belfast has been vacated and is presently being demolished.

  >The following are the seven Patrol bases in Co. Fermanagh which have been vacated and closed down:

  Mullan bridge

  Roscor bridge

  Wattle bridge

  Gortmullan

  Annaghmartin

  Killyvilly

  Clonatty Bridge.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what progress has been made in the reduction of the numbers and role of armed forces deployed in Northern Ireland since 10 April 1998; [70273]

  (2) if she will list the de-escalation in security measures in Northern Ireland that has taken place since 10 April 1998. [70137]
  620
  Mr. Ingram
  Since the reinstatement of the Provisional IRA ceasefire in July 1997, the Chief Constable has announced a progressive reduction in security measures in the Province. Each step has been fully consistent with the level of threat and taken after a review of the security situation.

  From 10 April to the end of August, key factors which influenced the levels of security across the Province included attacks on security forces, the marching season and terrorist incidents, the most serious being the bomb in Omagh.

  However, from September, the following measures have been taken:

  Base Reductions

  October

  Vacation of Letterkenny, Muff and Hump vehicle checkpoints

  Demolition of Crumlin Road Sangar

  Demolition of R16 Road Sangar

  Announcement of closure of Fort Whiterock

  November

  Demolition of three PVCPs at Bessbrook

  Work started (and continues) to demolish Letterkenny vehicle checkpoint

  January 1999

  Work started (and continues) to demolish Fort Whiterock Army Base

  Closure of 7 Fermanagh Base Patrols

  February 1999

  Demolition completed of Muff vehicle checkpoint

  Demolition completed of Aughnacloy vehicle checkpoint

  Demolition completed of Hump vehicle checkpoint

  Troop Movements

  September

  The last remaining company of the Rural Reinforcement Battalion (RRB) returned to the Mainland

  October

  The last remaining company of the Urban Reinforcement Battalion (URB) returned to the Mainland

  November

  Drumadd Roulement Battalion (DRB) returned to the Mainland

  Military Patrol Support to RUC

  September

  Military patrols ceased in Belfast Region

  Military patrols ceased in South Derry

  October

  Military patrols ceased in Waterside and City side, Londonderry

  Military patrols ceased in RUC G Division

  November

  Military patrols ceased in the Strabane Sub Division.

  Health Board Funding
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the capitation formula for the health boards was last determined; and what changes to the funding formula per board are proposed over the current planning period. [70099]
  621
  Mr. McFall
  The current Regional capitation formula was determined in September 1997 and was first used to inform the 1998–99 allocation to Health and Social Services (HSS) Boards.

  The following changes, which will apply to all HSS Boards, are proposed over the current planning period:

  (i) the updating of the age and sex expenditure weights currently used in the formula;

  (ii) the development and implementation of Northern Ireland specific indicators of need in those parts of the formula which currently have interim weightings based on English research.

  £000

  Financial year

  Northern HSS board

  Southern HSS board

  Eastern HSS board

  Western HSS board

  Total

  1993–94

  206,711

  169,130

  411,015

  145,838

  932,694

  1994–95

  222,059

  181,762

  423,774

  154,446

  982,041

  1995–96

  238,619

  193,290

  448,641

  166,096

  1,046,646

  1996–97

  252,246

  194,613

  434,200

  181,369

  1,062,428

  1997–98

  261,667

  203,320

  452,228

  189,586

  1,106,801

  Fracture Service
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from what budgets the recently announced £4 million for an improved fracture service in the Northern Ireland Health Service will be funded; and how much will be distributed to each health board. [70096]

  Mr. McFall
  The announcement on 20 January 1999 of £4 million for improved fracture services related to a capital scheme to enable the centralisation of fracture and accident and emergency services on the Royal Victoria Hospital site. The funding will provide enhanced and extended facilities and equipment at the Royal Victoria Hospital. The project will also involve additional investment of £1.1 million per year to provide additional scheduled theatre lists on the RVH site, increased outreach clinics in Antrim and

  Table 1: Number on inpatient waiting list by specialty, June 1994 to September 1996

  Quarter ending

  Specialty

  June 1994

  September 1994

  December 1994

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1996

  June 1996

  September 1996

  General surgery

  8,381

  8,348

  8,275

  8,442

  8,187

  8,825

  9,166

  8,698

  9,023

  10,367

  Urology

  2,647

  2,691

  2,886

  2,509

  2,750

  2,923

  2,901

  2,668

  3,015

  3,389

  T & O

  3,124

  3,134

  3,010

  2,753

  2,906

  3,171

  3,427

  3,570

  4,158

  4,579

  ENT

  5,478

  4,836

  4,764

  5,117

  5,516

  5,243

  5,168

  5,561

  5,768

  5,688

  Opthalmology

  4,988

  4,621

  4,519

  4,340

  4,064

  3,897

  4,036

  3,807

  4,079

  4,204

  Oral Surgery

  835

  734

  751

  832

  942

  1,027

  938

  884

  943

  911

  Paediatric dentistry

  103

  135

  127

  101

  106

  74

  57

  70

  64

  71

  Neurosurgery

  267

  246

  232

  231

  247

  271

  302

  296

  308

  347

  Plastic surgery

  2,401

  2,323

  2,283

  2,658

  2,829

  2,643

  2,557

  2,463

  2,511

  2,552

  Cardiac surgery

  521

  449

  443

  398

  395

  460

  471

  495

  539

  521

  Paediatric surgery

  1,706

  1,586

  1,477

  1,534

  1,623

  1,411

  1,251

  1,231

  1,277

  1,341

  Thoracic surgery

  88

  135

  138

  155

  135

  130

  142

  153

  171

  183

  Accident and emergency

  0

  0

  5

  7

  6

  4

  6

  9

  8

  3

  Anaesthetics

  504

  485

  469

  369

  359

  355

  414

  456

  483

  544

  General medicine

  213

  251

  293

  456

  386

  584

  468

  549

  610

  672

  Gastroenterology

  131

  169

  252

  313

  275

  263

  269

  318

  338

  446

  Endocrinology

  0

  0

  22

  19

  27

  15

  24

  28

  25

  28

  Haematology (Clin.)

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  11

  8

  5

  4

  15

  Cardiology

  702

  666

  713

  685

  722

  121

  758

  781

  890

  956

  Dermatology

  124

  374

  345

  370

  466

  478

  300

  268

  287

  300

  Thoracic Med

  0

  25

  15

  29

  29

  23

  41

  30

  30

  31

  Nephrology

  2

  5

  6

  7

  6

  —

  8

  3

  —

  2

  Neurology

  94

  81

  86

  80

  95

  92

  102

  112

  116

  127

  622

  (iii) the development and implementation of weightings designed to compensate Boards in respect of the possible additional need for, and additional cost of, providing services in rural areas; and

  (iv) the development and implementation of an improved methodology for adjusting Board allocations based on the capacity of each Board's residents to fund (in total or in part) their own care.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding was given to each of the health boards in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [70101]

  Mr. McFall
  Details of the Health and Personal Social Services (HSS) Board allocations for 1993–94 to 1997–98 for the purchase of health and social care are shown in the following table:

  Craigavon Hospitals and additional consultant sessions for outpatients. Both these sums will be met from the CSR settlement for the HPSS which I announced on 15 December 1998.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on waiting lists in each month in the past five years in the Northern Ireland Health Service for each recorded speciality. [70098]

  Mr. McFall
  The number of people on waiting lists in the last five years in the Northern Ireland Health Service for each recorded speciality are not available monthly. Data are available on a quarterly basis from June 1994 and are set out in the table.
  623

  Table 1: Number on inpatient waiting list by specialty, June 1994 to September 1996

  Quarter ending

  Specialty

  June 1994

  September 1994

  December 1994

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1996

  June 1996

  September 1996

  Rheumatology

  39

  114

  135

  159

  189

  259

  257

  293

  300

  296

  Paediatrics

  0

  0

  6

  31

  39

  41

  28

  22

  25

  13

  Paediatric Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  3

  2

  5

  2

  5

  Geriatric med

  31

  46

  39

  36

  16

  24

  19

  26

  29

  32

  Dental medicine specialties

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  3,299

  3,283

  3,514

  3,315

  3,369

  3,511

  3,616

  3,511

  3,513

  3,598

  Clinical oncology

  70

  67

  75

  62

  60

  59

  67

  65

  58

  69

  Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Histopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  31

  0

  63

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All specialties

  35,779

  34,804

  34,945

  35,015

  35,752

  36,524

  36,803

  36,377

  38,574

  41,290

  Number on inpatient waiting list by specialty, December 1996 to December 1998

  Quarter ending

  Specialty

  December 1996

  March 1997

  June 1997

  September 1997

  December 1997

  March 1998

  June 1998

  September 1998

  December 1998

  General surgery

  11,685

  12,549

  12,624

  13,445

  13,933

  12,568

  12,465

  11,970

  11,612

  Urology

  3,338

  3,566

  3,489

  3,662

  3,546

  3,389

  3,744

  3,521

  3,509

  T & O

  4,754

  4,952

  5,232

  5,237

  5,333

  5,336

  4,939

  5,278

  5,500

  ENT

  5,148

  6,154

  6,289

  6,027

  6,138

  6,174

  6,389

  6,153

  5,819

  Opthalmology

  4,368

  4,307

  4,502

  4,344

  4,580

  4,517

  4,781

  4,745

  4,623

  Oral Surgery

  884

  801

  499

  532

  468

  502

  542

  662

  594

  Paediatric dentistry

  91

  96

  108

  101

  105

  134

  126

  102

  133

  Neurosurgery

  360

  406

  404

  405

  403

  419

  425

  422

  413

  Plastic surgery

  2,514

  2,587

  2,887

  2,939

  2,966

  2,773

  2,587

  2,378

  2,307

  Cardiac surgery

  528

  550

  573

  533

  529

  512

  463

  437

  473

  Paediatric surgery

  1,390

  1,430

  1,554

  1,558

  1,625

  1,421

  1,182

  1,042

  794

  Thoracic surgery

  192

  228

  205

  207

  197

  186

  201

  186

  195

  Accident and emergency

  3

  7

  7

  11

  2

  0

  0

  5

  11

  Anaesthetics

  558

  557

  552

  627

  644

  729

  814

  837

  868

  General medicine

  748

  838

  871

  734

  940

  1,135

  1,154

  1,058

  1,255

  Gastroenterology

  458

  446

  455

  476

  494

  472

  528

  619

  568

  Endocrinology

  24

  23

  14

  20

  31

  29

  26

  21

  27

  Haematology (Clin.)

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  23

  Cardiology

  877

  947

  892

  949

  1,012

  973

  1,026

  997

  979

  Dermatology

  276

  277

  214

  294

  298

  247

  262

  333

  413

  Thoracic Med

  21

  16

  25

  3

  10

  5

  4

  1

  1

  Nephrology

  1

  3

  68

  62

  84

  75

  114

  120

  117

  Neurology

  146

  203

  223

  210

  235

  244

  283

  229

  156

  Rheumatology

  267

  319

  320

  358

  302

  406

  338

  311

  395

  Paediatrics

  15

  15

  21

  18

  11

  16

  11

  11

  15

  Paediatric Neurology

  2

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Geriatric med

  13

  15

  39

  15

  20

  18

  19

  15

  15

  Dental medicine specialties

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  9

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  3,901

  4,415

  4,414

  4,650

  4,758

  4,619

  4,779

  4,912

  4,853

  Clinical oncology

  50

  58

  57

  39

  66

  97

  69

  59

  57

  Haematology

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  3

  4

  2

  Histopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All specialties

  42,614

  45,769

  46,543

  47,461

  48,740

  47,005

  47,283

  46,428

  45,727

  Source

  CH1

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many (i) men and (ii) women aged(a) 18 to 24 and (b) over 25 years old were employed under the ACE programme each month during 1998; [70074]

  (2) how many jobs have been lost under the ACE programme in each of the past 12 months; [70072]

  (3) how many people moved from the ACE programme into permanent jobs in each of the past five years; [70071]

  (4) how many (i) men and (ii) women aged (a) 18 to 24 and (b) over 25 years old were employed under the ACE programme in each of the last five years; [70075]
  624
  (5) when the ACE programme is to be terminated. [70073]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for these issues has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Malcolm Moss, dated 15 February 1999:

  Parliamentary Questions 70071–70075

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.
  625
  Parliamentary Question 70071

  Details of the number of people moving from ACE into permanent employment are derived from a biannual survey of those who have left the programme. The flow into employment is therefore based on those who respond to the survey. The figures for the last five years for which data is available are:

  Year

  Into employment (percentage)

  1993

  35

  1994

  38

  1995

  38

  1996

  37

  1997

  44

  Parliamentary Question 70072

  During 1998 there was a net reduction in the number of jobs provided by ACE but in some months there was in increase. In December 1997, 4,334 jobs were provided and the movements over the following 12 months:

  Month

  Increase/Reduction

  January

  -33

  February

  +18

  March

  -36

  April

  -11

  May

  -.09

  June

  -.19

  July

  -.63

  August

  -81

  September

  +12

  Average occupancy

  18–24 years old

  Over 24 years old

  Totals

  Year

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Grand Total

  1994–95

  1,123

  1,188

  3,406

  3,575

  4,538

  4,762

  9,301

  1995–96

  1,154

  1,136

  3,477

  3,422

  4,631

  4,559

  9,189

  1996–97

  920

  820

  2,769

  2,466

  3,689

  3,286

  6,975

  1997–98

  701

  559

  2,111

  1,678

  2,812

  2,237

  5,049

  1998–991

  194

  189

  2,206

  1,311

  2,400

  1,500

  3,900

  1 Estimated outturn figures

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Arms Decommissioning
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information she has obtained on public attitudes in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Ireland towards (i) decommissioning of arms and (ii) punishment beatings. [71582]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State is fully aware of the attitudes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland towards decommissioning and paramilitary attacks. The Government are committed to implementing all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement.

  Obtaining information on public attitudes in the Republic of Ireland is a matter for the Irish Government.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money from the National Lottery
  626

  Month

  Increase/Reduction

  October

  +44

  November

  +20

  December

  +62

  Number of jobs at end of December 1998: 3939

  Reduction over 12 month period: 496

  Parliamentary Question 70073

  The ACE programme will be phased out during 1999 and its replacement, Worktrain, will become operational in August 1999. Transitional arrangements will be made for those remaining in ACE beyond July 1999.

  Parliamentary Question 70074

  Details of the number of participants by age group in the ACE programme were not collected prior to the introduction of New Deal.

  Since early 1998, approximately 25 per cent. of ACE participants were aged between 18 and 24. Following the introduction of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, recruitment of people in this age group into ACE was discontinued. Numbers have now reduced to 194 females and 189 males. I expect that by April 1999 there will be no 18 to 24 year olds participating in ACE.

  At the end of December 1998 there were 2,111 females and 1,344 males (total 3,455) in the 25+ age group participating in the ACE programme.

  Parliamentary Question 70075

  As I explained in my answer to question 70074, prior to the introduction of New Deal, information on the age of ACE participants was not collected. However on the assumption that approximately 25 per cent. of participants were in the 18–24 years group, (as was the situation whenever New Deal was introduced) and 7.1 per cent. were over 25 years, then the following estimates apply:

  Distribution Fund has been paid to (a) environmental, (b) educational, (c) health and (d) tourism programmes in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [70100]

  Mr. Banks
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date the Lottery distributing bodies have made 1,634 awards to the value of £497 million in Northern Ireland. The table shows a breakdown by Good Cause. Many of these projects are likely to contribute to the environment, health, education and tourism of Northern Ireland but these cannot be separately identified in the way requested.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 created a new good cause allowing Lottery money to fund innovative projects in health, education and the environment. These initiatives will be run by a new distributor, the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). NOF has begun to invite applications and will be making its first awards this spring.

  Details of Lottery awards for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK are listed on the Department for Culture, Media and Sports website at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.
  627

  £

  Distributing body

  Number of awards

  Value of awards

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  426

  27,142,851

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  406

  30,455,505

  National Lottery Charities Board

  672

  38,353,915

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  93

  27,168,986

  Millennium Commission

  37

  374,722,232

  Total

  1,634

  497,843,489

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the parliamentary constituencies which she has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71338]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Both myself and the Parliamentary Secretary have undertaken a number of visits to regions since taking up office at the Privy Council. Records for official visits are not held on a constituency basis, and most will have taken in more than one constituency at a time. The following cities or regions were visited:

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Welwyn Garden City

  Lincoln

  Skegness

  Newcastle

  Doncaster

  Darlington.

  Additionally, we have visited a number of constituencies in London as part of our official duties.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Norman Shaw Buildings
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how long the temporary arrangement is due to last for the provision of a passage between the House and the Norman Shaw buildings. [70996]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: As part of the agreement with London Underground Ltd. for the development of Westminster station and Portcullis House, they have built a new public subway under Bridge Street which opened last week. The next stage is for London Underground to refurbish the old subway, which will then provide a direct and private link between the Palace and the outbuildings to the north of the Street.

  It is anticipated that the subway will re-open in the latter part of 2000.
  628

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  ASSIST Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the ASSIST programme. [71057]

  Clare Short
  I have discussed the ASSIST programme with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with a view to ensuring that we take a consistent approach across government to security sector issues.

  Officials of my Department have also discussed the ASSIST programme with officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions the full interdepartmental working group on overseas development co-operation has met at ministerial level since 25 September 1998; and what discussions it has held on arms exports. [71043]

  Clare Short
  The Interdepartmental Working Group on Development (IDWG) last met on September 25 1998. A further meeting will be held in the spring.

  The IDWG has discussed broad issues of security sector reform but has not specifically discussed arms exports.

  Ministry of Defence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the new Defence Diplomacy Mission; [71058]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the Ministry of Defence's outreach assistance programme and the use of the British Military Assistance Fund. [71059]

  Clare Short
  There are close contacts at Ministerial and official level between my Department and the Ministry of Defence. These cover a wide range of Defence Diplomacy and related issues, including Outreach and the use of the Defence Military Assistance Fund.

  Security Sector Reform
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on using the European Community Development Budget funds to finance security sector reform activities and initiatives to remove small arms from circulation. [71044]

  Clare Short
  The possibility of using EU development funds to finance security projects is a difficult issue from a legal point of view. The Commission enjoys competence in the field of development co-operation under the EU' s first pillar, competence on conflict prevention and resolution
  629
  rests with Member States under the EU' s second pillar (known as the Common Foreign and Security Policy). We are making progress, however, in advancing the principle that wherever possible, development assistance should contribute to the prevention of conflict; the November 1998 Development Council agreed conclusions to this affect.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by her Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71465]

  Clare Short
  Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS) are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House.

  Since May 1997, the Department for International Development has issued 110 press releases. The total cost of these press releases is approximately £13,000. The costs include postage and wire service.

  The Commonwealth Development Corporation has issued 42 press releases since May 1997. The total cost of these press releases is approximately £6,000. The costs include postage, wire service, photocopying and consultancy services.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many press releases have been issued by her Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71450]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has issued the following number of press releases in each of the years 1990 to 1998:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  114

  1991

  102

  1992

  111

  1993

  94

  1994

  106

  1995

  71

  1996

  50

  1997

  58

  1998

  74

  The only relevant agency or non-departmental body to issue press releases is the Commonwealth Development Corporation which has issued the following number of press releases in each of the years 1990 to 1998:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  no figures available

  1991

  no figures available

  1992

  no figures available

  1993

  no figures available

  1994

  no figures available

  630

  Year

  Number

  1995

  9

  1996

  20

  1997

  16

  1998

  28

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department has provided or offered assistance(a) bilaterally and (b) through Operation Lifeline Sudan, to (i) the Government of Sudan, (ii) the rebel movement in Sudan and (iii) non-Governmental organisations active in Sudan, for de-mining projects in Sudan. [71768]

  Clare Short
  While a state of civil war continues to exist, we will not offer assistance for de-mining projects in Sudan.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the facilities at Malakal, El-Obeid and Khartoum airports were first offered by the Government of Sudan as air transport centres for Operation Lifeline Sudan humanitarian relief flights; when Sudanese airport facilities started to be used by Operation Lifeline Sudan; for what reasons these internal Sudanese facilities were not used earlier by Operation Lifeline Sudan; and what are the estimated savings to Operation Lifeline Sudan of using El-Obeid and Khartoum airports. [71686]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Sudan have offered for some years the use of airports in the north of the country for relief flights to the south, but donors have preferred to operate from an independent base in Kenya. Northern Sudanese air strips were used last year for the first time because of the greatly increased need due to the crisis. The difference in cost is not yet known, but a major independent study of Operation Lifeline Sudan, undertaken in 1996, concluded that it would be marginal.

  The cost of delivering food by air in Sudan last year was approximately 15 times the World Food Programme's average world wide food delivery cost. Real savings for the relief effort will come from maximising land routes, including rail, for delivery of humanitarian assistance to vulnerable areas of southern Sudan. We are pressing the UN to make progress on this.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-Governmental organisations working in Sudan which have received funding from her Department, or its predecessor, over the past eight years; and what the level of funding for each was in those years. [71765]

  Clare Short
  This information is included in the following table.
  631

  £

  NGO expenditure

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  Total

  Aain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65,584

  374,608

  33

  —

  —

  440,225

  ACORD

  1,800,000

  750,000

  290,000

  365,000

  203,356

  71,925

  59,531

  50,000

  50,000

  3,639,812

  Across

  —

  208,904

  —

  100,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40,000

  348,904

  Action Disability and Development

  18,612

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,612

  Aicf

  —

  —

  —

  —

  250,000

  450,000

  —

  —

  —

  700,000

  Aktion Afrika Hilfe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  133,961

  —

  183,961

  Amref

  39,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39,000

  British Red Cross

  1,000,000

  184,558

  —

  289,360

  608,179

  200,000

  —

  —

  250,000

  2,532,097

  CAFOD

  300,000

  —

  634,976

  329,750

  1,786,978

  —

  105,404

  —

  4,000

  3,161,108

  CARE

  2,998,486

  6,365,553

  3,305,186

  1,997,676

  1,724,974

  511,327

  896,201

  1,127.042

  716,694

  19,643,139

  Christian Aid

  400,000

  2,196,320

  554,601

  216,666

  441,804

  —

  —

  —

  334,330

  4,143,721

  Christian Outreach

  310,000

  245,682

  175,000

  221,000

  143,850

  150,000

  35,000

  —

  —

  1,280,532

  CONCERN

  161,000

  344,475

  224,244

  272,737

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,002,456

  GOAL

  —

  21,744

  6,909

  245,000

  322,290

  —

  75,681

  16,433

  511,355

  1,199,412

  Health Unlimited

  —

  —

  9,515

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,515

  Help the Aged

  60,000

  60,000

  60,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  180,000

  ICRC

  —

  184,558

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  1,184,558

  IFRC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  315,000

  —

  315,000

  International Extension College

  150,000

  153,785

  100,000

  100,000

  100,000

  100,000

  —

  12,097

  —

  715,882

  Islamic Relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59,945

  59,602

  59,125

  —

  —

  178,672

  Merlin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  731,418

  731,418

  MSF

  —

  —

  62,000

  —

  447,323

  —

  589,028

  274,172

  2,608,775

  3,981,298

  Ockenden Venture

  258,268

  145,217

  272,172

  199,950

  118,000

  201,050

  231,585

  68,492

  —

  1,494,734

  Oxfam

  —

  —

  100,000

  10,000

  740,854

  439,635

  183,256

  880,801

  87,000

  2,441,546

  Plan International

  267,998

  44,000

  49,500

  55,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  416,498

  SCF

  1,720,799

  2,135,414

  2,107,767

  2,930,062

  1,800,265

  964,892

  1,137,716

  1,323,923

  636,055

  14,756,893

  SOS Sahel International

  49,210

  43,969

  27,605

  34,579

  36,062

  17,689

  —

  —

  —

  209,114

  Tear Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94,408

  —

  25,540

  119,948

  Vetaid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  106,800

  198,419

  —

  —

  305,219

  World Vision

  —

  31,250

  —

  —

  50,074

  394,090

  186,296

  72,352

  233,393

  967,455

  You and Me

  40,000

  32,446

  36,800

  —

  32,700

  34,250

  20,000

  14,000

  —

  210,196

  Total

  9,573,373

  13,147,875

  8,016,275

  7,366,780

  8,932,238

  4,075,868

  3,921,683

  4,288,273

  7,228,560

  66,550,925

  1 Estimated

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many personnel within Operation Lifeline Sudan directly monitor food aid diversion. [71789]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme has increased the number of food aid monitors to 125 as part of its response to the joint OLS/SRRA/SPLA Task Force Report.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidelines have existed for Operation Lifeline Sudan's procurement of food supplies for its emergency food aid programmes; and if Operation Lifeline Sudan is procuring food from within Sudan itself. [71767]

  Clare Short
  Operation Lifeline Sudan itself does not procure food. This is the responsibility of the UN World Food Programme, international agencies and non-governmental organisations operating in Sudan who have a full range of policies and procedures for the procurement of food and related services. Food is purchased from within Sudan when this represents the most cost effective option.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of his staff monitor food aid diversion in Sudan. [71799]

  Clare Short
  Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) monitors food aid diversions. We regularly raise this and other humanitarian issues with the SPLA both bilaterally and in concert with OLS. It was discussed most recently on 25 January in London with SPLA's UK representatives and on 26 January in Nairobi at a joint OLS/Donor 632
  meeting with John Garang, leader of the SPLA. At both meetings, assurances were given that action against food aid diversions would be taken.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will estimate the amount of food aid misappropriated by combatants in southern Sudan; [71796]

  (2) what estimate she has received from Operation Lifeline Sudan of the amount of food aid misappropriated by combatants in southern Sudan. [71797]

  Clare Short
  No definitive figures are available and the scale of diversions by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and government supported militias vary with location. During November and December, the UN World Food Programme estimated that 3.47 per cent. of food aid delivered was diverted overall. It is suspected that further losses occur after the food has been distributed.

  The Task Force report on a mission carried out jointly by Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA) and the SPLA in August 1998 identified a number of cases of diversion. Copies of this report are being deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what official reports she has received on food aid diversion in southern Sudan in the past 12 months. [71792]
  633
  Clare Short
  We received the report of the OLS/SRRA/SPLA Joint Targeting and Vulnerabilities Task Force in SPLA Controlled Areas of Bahr el Ghazal in August 1998. Copies are being deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effect on the population of the floods in Sudan in 1998, and the effectiveness of the response of the Government of Sudan and the international community to the floods. [71685]

  Clare Short
  Many thousands of people were adversely affected by the floods in Sudan last year. We contributed £250,000 towards the flood relief efforts of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies which were timely and well targeted. We have made no assessment of the response by the Government of Sudan or the rest of the international community.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff within the European Community Humanitarian Office monitor food aid diversion in Sudan. [71800]

  Clare Short
  Three EC staff are involved with the ECHO programme in southern Sudan. Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) is responsible for monitoring food aid diversions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has received from the European Community Humanitarian Office on the amount of food aid misappropriated by combatants in southern Sudan. [71798]

  Clare Short
  We have received no such estimates from the European Community Humanitarian Office.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many sites in southern Sudan are currently served by Operation Lifeline Sudan; and how many were so served in(a) January 1998 and (b) January 1997. [71766]

  Clare Short
  In November/December 1998, the most recent period for which information is available, 103 rebel held areas were served by the UN World Food Programme in southern Sudan. In addition, deliveries were made to Government of Sudan held locations. More detailed information is not readily available.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the amount of British aid to southern Sudan which has been misappropriated in order to purchase weapons and war material. [71790]

  Clare Short
  No definitive figures are available on the amount of food aid diversions in southern Sudan. It is important that the peace process is pursued vigorously in parallel with humanitarian relief to minimise the danger of such assistance feeding the war economy. We and the international community are supporting the efforts of the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (1GAD) to broker a long-term agreement and are pressing both sides of the conflict to undertake serious negotiation towards a lasting and just peace.
  634
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all the agreements and arrangements made to date between Operation Lifeline Sudan and all parties to the conflict in order to facilitate relief operations and humanitarian assistance in affected parts of Sudan. [71684]

  Clare Short
  This information is not readily available.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the efficiency, transparency and effectiveness of Operation Lifeline Sudan. [71769]

  Clare Short
  Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) expanded its response in 1998 in very difficult circumstances as the crisis in southern Sudan unfolded. The UN and donors have learned several lessons from the experience. We are in close touch with the UN to improve the effectiveness of the operation and are working with them.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of food aid monitors within Operation Lifeline Sudan; how many monitors are in the field; and where they are based in southern Sudan. [71791]

  Clare Short
  The role of the World Food Programme (WFP) food monitors is to oversee food distribution. They are effective at ensuring that food aid is allocated fairly at distribution points, but less so in preventing some of the food from being diverted between distribution and its eventual delivery to vulnerable households. Since the recent crisis, we have been pressing for firmer action on diversion. WFP has increased the number of food aid monitors to 125. Monitors shift from location to location, depending where food aid deliveries are to be made.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she has had on food aid diversion in Sudan with her fellow development Ministers in the European Union; [71793]

  (2) what representations she has made on food aid diversion in Sudan at meetings of the Development Council/General Affairs Council in Europe. [71794]

  Clare Short
  Discussions with development and foreign ministers have focused on the main cause of the suffering in Sudan, the civil war, and on how to work with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the IGAD Partners Forum to achieve a long-term and just peace settlement. Action on food aid diversion needs to be led by the UN System. I have discussed the problem with the appropriate agencies.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to relocate staff in(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which she is responsible to the regions of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of unemployment; and what plans she has further to decentralise the location of her Department and its agencies. [70462]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) operations are already decentralised. We have two offices in the UK: 414 staff are located in East Kilbride and 755 in London. In addition DFID has offices
  635
  abroad in Bangkok, Harare, Bridgetown, Dhaka, Delhi, Nairobi, Pretoria and Suva employing, mainly under contract, 207 UK-based and 280 locally recruited staff.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to "Civil Service Statistics 1998" which is available in the Library of the House and which provides a regional breakdown of staff.

  In April 1998 my Department announced that 43 jobs from DFID's London office would be moved to East Kilbride. I have no plans to relocate any further parts of my Department. My Department has no agencies.

  Aid Schemes (Former Soviet Union)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the British aid schemes currently operating in the former states of the Soviet Union giving assistance to the educational and health care systems; what private or semi-private British aid initiatives are operating in conjunction with these; and if she will make a statement. [71175]

  Clare Short
  We are operating a wide range of know-how fund projects in the countries of the former Soviet Union in the health and education sectors. I will place a list in the Library of the House. These projects are undertaken with a variety of partners. They are usually implemented on a contractual basis with UK or other organisations. A variety of health care professionals contribute their time for free to our Health Small Partnerships Scheme in Russia and Ukraine.

TREASURY

  Pensions (LISAs)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if LISA style pensions are to be used as freestanding top-ups to existing(a) personal and (b) occupational pension plans. [69890]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's proposal, currently under consultation, is for an investment vehicle to help launch stakeholder pensions. As the Chief Secretary stated in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 677–78, this financial instrument could also be used by any other kind of pension: personal pensions, occupational pensions and additional voluntary contributions to occupational schemes.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with trades unions representing the staff of the Office for National Statistics regarding the current review of that department; [69679]

  (2) what plans his Department has to privatise the work of the Office for National Statistics. [69849]

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in reviewing the way the Office for National Statistics delivers its outputs in order to ensure that it makes the best use of the resources available. [71996]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am today releasing the findings of a review of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  636
  This has concluded that there is scope within ONS to achieve efficiency savings rising to around £20 million per year. The review has been guided by a Steering Group under the Chairmanship of Peter Ellwood, Group Chief Executive of Lloyds TSB, and draws on work carried out by the consultants KPMG.

  ONS has achieved significant efficiency savings since its creation three years ago. The review identified ways of building on its forward efficiency plans through further streamlining of activities within ONS and the development of closer working arrangements with appropriate private sector organisations. The proposed changes would allow ONS to focus professional resources and management attention where they can add most value.

  These findings will be made available to staff in the ONS. I will invite the trade unions to give me their reactions to the findings before making any decisions on the way forward.

  Sierra Leone (Weapons)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action HM Customs and Excise is taking to investigate recent allegations that two British companies have been involved in supplying weapons to rebels in Sierra Leone. [70663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The investigation of alleged breaches of United Kingdom export controls is a matter for the Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise. It is not the Commissioner's general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of such investigations.

  Euro Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the current exchange rates for the euro on the balance of trade with Euroland. [70615]

  Ms Hewitt
  The trade balance reflects a variety of factors and it is difficult to isolate the effects of the exchange rate. In the three months to November 1998, shortly before the introduction of the Euro, the UK had a trade in goods deficit with the Eurozone economies of £1.8 billion, compared with £1.5 billion in the previous three months.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the use of and (b) the cost of focus groups by the Financial Services Authority for its advertising campaigns. [71129]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of Government expenditure by Malawi on debt servicing in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1995 and (v) the latest available year. [71392]
  637
  Ms Hewitt
  The World Bank publication Global Development Finance: Country Tables 1998 gives the following figures for 1980, 1989, 1990, 1995 and 1996. It does not give data for 1985.

  Year

  Debt service paid (US$m)

  1980

  68

  1989

  58

  1990

  103

  1995

  105

  1996

  68

  Pensions Mis-selling Advertisement
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Ice Cream Alliance regarding the Financial Services Authority advertising campaign on pensions mis-selling. [71132]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chief Executive of the Ice Cream Alliance wrote to the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary on 2 February.

  EMU Preparations Standing Committee
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Preparations for EMU. [71945]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer held the most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on 27 January 1999. I have arranged for copies of the minutes to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in the review of personal pensions mis-selling. [71946]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Personal Investment Authority (PIA) has confirmed that it is satisfied that all 41 major firms are devoting sufficient energy and resources to the review of personal pension mis-selling. It judged that all the firms monitored by the Treasury have made sufficient progress towards their priority review targets to be removed from the published list. The Treasury has acted on the PIA advice and suspended publication of figures.

  However, firms will still be monitored and expected to conclude the priority review, and make swift progress with phase 2. The Treasury reserves the right to resume publication of information about firms' progress should it prove necessary.

  The regulators' advertising campaign for phase 2 of the pension review is now well under way. Younger people should take the opportunity of finding out whether they might be due redress for mis-selling. Anyone who receives a letter from their pension firm should read it carefully and decide whether they wish to put their case forward for review.

  Fuel Duties
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the Exchequer's average receipt from(a) a small and medium-sized enterprise and (b) a company with
  638
  more than 100 employees arising from (i) the increase in the road fuel escalator to 6 per cent., announced in the 1997 Budget, (ii) the indexation of vehicle excise duty, announced in the 1997 Budget, (iii) the bringing forward of fuel duty increases, announced in the 1998 Budget, (iv) the increase in diesel duty differential, announced in the 1998 Budget, (v) the increase in duty on super-unleaded petrol duty, announced in the 1998 Budget and (vi) the increase in company car fuel tax, announced in the 1998 Budget. [71664]

  Ms Hewitt
  The effect of these measures across enterprises and companies will vary considerably; this reflects the differing circumstances of individual enterprises and companies.

  VAT
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU legislative provisions which permit a reduction in the rate of VAT from 17½ per cent. to five per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [71000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under the provisions of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, Member States have the option of applying one or two reduced rates of VAT, at not less than 5 per cent., to any of the goods and services specified in Annex H of that Directive.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses were affected by the landfill tax announcement in the 1998 Budget; and if he will estimate the average cost per business. [70670]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: It is not possible to identify how many businesses send their waste to landfill instead of to another waste disposal option such as recycling or incineration. It is therefore not possible to given an average cost per business.

  Trading Loss Carry Back
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been affected by the 1997 Budget measure to restrict trading loss carry back to one year. [70675]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The restriction on carry back of trading losses could affect up to 20,000 companies a year but the numbers will vary from year to year depending on trading conditions.

  Driving Costs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue the average(a) private motorist and (b) company car driver will have contributed to the Exchequer as a result of the 1997 and 1998 budgets. [70681]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The effect of Budget measures on private motorists and company car drivers will vary considerably; this reflects the differing circumstances of individual private motorists and company car drivers.
  639

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households were affected by the reduction of VAT on fuel in the 1997 Budget; and what is the average change in(a) electricity and (b) gas bills. [70673]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Approximately 24½; million households benefited from the reduction of VAT on fuel.

  The cut in the VAT rate on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. in September 1997 is estimated to have reduced the bill for a typical household in 1998 by £7.50 for electricity and by £9.00 for gas.
  640

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69508]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The headline pay settlement was 2.95 per cent. on the pay bill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 3.9 per cent. The increases were not staged.
  641

SCOTLAND

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate the Scottish Sports Council has made of the total revenue financial support provided by Scottish councils for sport in 1998–99 and in each of the previous five years. [69713]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Sports Council does not make separate estimates for this but uses figures on local authority expenditure on leisure and recreation collected by the Scottish Office. The figures, which are not available at a more disaggregated level, are as follows:

  Net local authority revenue expenditure on leisure and recreation

  Year

  £000

  1998–99

  1286,310

  1997–98

  2294,612

  1996–97

  303,832

  1995–96

  307,048

  1994–95

  289,803

  1993–94

  282,346

  1 Estimate

  2 Provisional

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

  New Housing Partnership
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the budget is for the New Housing Partnership scheme in 1998–99,1999–2000,2000–01 and 2001–02. [70309]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Following is the information requested:

  £ million

  New Housing Partnerships selected for funding in May and October 1998

  New Housing Partnership bids currently under consideration

  1998–99

  35

  —

  1999–2000

  30

  23

  2000–01

  20

  95

  2001–02

  5

  160

  I will be making an announcement shortly about the selection of bids currently under consideration for funding.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the process is by which bids for funding for the New Housing Partnership scheme are scrutinised. [70312]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Bids for funding are being assessed by the New Housing Partnership Advisory Group against the criteria set out in the Department's letters of invitation. The Group has sought clarification, from some local authorities, on aspects of their bids. The Group will shortly be making recommendations to me on the merits 642
  of the bids, and I will make an announcement shortly. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who sits on the panel that scrutinises bids for the New Housing Partnership scheme; and how and for what reason they were chosen. [70313]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The members of the New Housing Partnerships Advisory Group are:M

  Scottish office

  David Belfall (chair)

  John Breslin

  Rod Merrall

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Albert Tait

  Kenny Simpson

  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

  David Orr

  Chartered Institute of housing

  John Perry

  Alan Ferguson

  Scottish Homes

  Stuart Nichol

  Chief Executive, Broomleigh Housing Association

  Keith Exford

  The Group provides advice to Ministers on bids received from local authorities for New Housing Partnerships funding.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the criteria are that local authorities have to meet to be entitled to funding from the New Housing Partnership scheme. [70311]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The criteria for New Housing Partnership funding have been set out in letters issued by the Scottish Office Development Department. A copy of the Department's letter of 24 August 1998, which invites bids for the period 1999–2000, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

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

  Council House Debt
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total level of council house debt, including capital debt, by local authority area in Scotland; [70310]

  (2) what are the expected levels of council house debt, including capital debt, by local authority area for 1998–99,1999–2000,2000–01 and 2001–02. [70315]
  643
  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on local authority housing debt is collected annually from local authorities. The most recent estimates available, as at 1 April 1998, are shown in the table.

  Authority

  Debt (£)

  Aberdeen City

  134,682,000

  Aberdeenshire

  150,821,000

  Angus

  34,655,914

  Argyll and Bute

  53,594,327

  Clackmannanshire

  26,589,900

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  44,629,236

  Dumfries and Galloway

  107,598,933

  Dundee City

  117,916,400

  East Ayrshire

  83,426,996

  East Dunbartonshire

  45,574,000

  East Lothian

  43,554,000

  East Renfrewshire

  25,643,300

  Edinburgh City

  283,591,341

  Falkirk

  90,976,000

  Fife

  208,240,991

  Glasgow City

  914,638,203

  Highland

  222,559,000

  Inverclyde

  97,559,900

  Midlothian

  25,138,104

  Moray

  50,066,031

  North Ayrshire

  86,772,000

  North Lanarkshire

  231,658,606

  Orkney Islands

  4,769,000

  Perth and Kinross

  47,759,926

  Renfrewshire

  143,943,035

  Scottish Borders

  69,226,695

  Shetland Islands

  60,157,961

  South Ayrshire

  60,397,134

  South Lanarkshire

  230,800,643

  Stirling

  45,625,903

  West Dunbartonshire

  92,236,590

  West Lothian

  69,886,114

  Scotland

  3,904,689,183

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the time scale is, by local authority area, for the repayment of council house debt; and by when he expects all council housing debt to be repaid. [70328]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information about the time scale for repayment of council housing debt is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Housing Debt
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra funding he plans to provide to assist local authorities to repay housing debt. [70320]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We have indicated that, in certain circumstances, we will be prepared to provide assistance with housing debt to councils which tranfers their housing stock into community ownership. This assistance will be available where the transfer represents good value for money and is selected to proceed under the New Housing Partnerships initiative. Detailed arrangements will need to 644
  be agreed in individual cases and be affordable. The resources necessary will be found from within the funding available under the New Housing Partnerships initiative.

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

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on homeless initiatives on in 1996–97,1997–98 and 1998–99. [70316]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Expenditure by The Scottish Office on homeless initiatives in 1996–97, 1997–98 and provision for 1998–99 is set out in the table:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Scottish Office grants to voluntary bodies

  354,000

  454,000

  577,000

  Rough sleepers initiative

  —

  2,173,000

  3,331,000

  Total

  354,000

  2,626,000

  3,908,000

  In addition, local authorities in Scotland and Scottish Homes commit resources to help meet the needs of the homeless through their ongoing housing programmes.

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

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations will be responsible for spending the extra funding for the Rough Sleepers Initiative announced on 16 December 1998. [70319]

  Mr. Macdonald
  These additional resources will be available in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Decisions about their use will be a matter for the Scottish Administration and Parliament.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from which budget the extra funding for the Rough Sleepers Initiative announced on 16 December 1998 was funded; and from what programmes funding has been taken as a result. [70317]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The additional funding for the Rough Sleepers Initiative announced on 16 December 1998 was identified following the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. It has not been taken from resources previously allocated to other programmes.

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

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from lawyers about a decline in their work at sheriff courts because of changes in administrative practice. [70344]

  Mr. McLeish
  None.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  645
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of changes in the last five years in the(a) number and (b) proportion of cases that are going to the Sheriff Court as a result of changes in administrative practice. [70343]

  Mr. McLeish
  The long-term trend has been for growth in business in the Sheriff Courts. In the past 5 years, the general trend in summary and solemn business and in civil business has been for a small reduction in the number of cases and for a small increase in the average of length of cases going to trial or proof. Many factors influence trends in court business but there is no evidence that administrative practice in the courts has significantly affected the national picture.

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

  Fiscal Fines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the financial return from fiscal fines in the last recorded year and the distribution of fines by amount. [70342]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information provided by the district courts shows that in 1997–98 approximately £527,000 was collected from the payment of fiscal fines. Information on the amount of fines by value is not held centrally.

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

  Health White Paper
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the White Paper on improving Scotland's health will be published; and if he will make a statement. [71997]

  Mr. Dewar
  The White Paper "Towards a Healthier Scotland" is being published on 17 February. Copies will be laid before the House and will be available in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  The White Paper sets out the Government's strategy for improving health for all in Scotland, and builds on the positive response to the Green Paper "Working Together for a Healthier Scotland", published in February 1998.

  Our drive to better health includes a coherent attack on the roots of ill health such as poverty, unemployment, and a polluted environment, combined with action to encourage healthier lifestyles and to address Scotland's key health problems. An over-arching aim is to tackle health inequalities. There is a specific focus on measures to improve the health of children and on new initiatives against Scotland's 2 major killing diseases—cancer and coronary heart disease. Particular emphasis is placed on the development of a concerted approach to health improvement across Government, and involving the National Health Service, local authorities, voluntary and other bodies whose policies and actions impact on health.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  646

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, columns 173–74, on education expenditure, if he will list the figures for 1996–97 and 1998–99 in 1997–98 prices. [71475]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The following table shows the final outturn for 1996–97 and 1998–99 at 1997–98 prices. Final outturn figures for any year are generally higher than the budget estimates.

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

  Local authority education spending

  £000

  (at 1997–98 prices)

  1996–97

  1998–99

  Councils

  Final outturn

  Budget estimates

  Aberdeen, City

  89,341

  85,849

  Aberdeenshire

  112,428

  108,748

  Angus

  49,212

  48,531

  Argyll and Bute

  50,745

  47,781

  Clackmannanshire

  24,686

  24,524

  Dumfries and Galloway

  69,220

  68,752

  Dundee

  72,078

  67,317

  East Ayrshire

  60,566

  59,034

  East Dunbartonshire

  54,677

  52,479

  East Lothian

  38,496

  36,867

  East Renfrewshire

  43,711

  42,963

  Edinburgh, City

  163,076

  159,645

  Eilean Siar

  24,181

  23,945

  Falkirk

  64,331

  62,503

  Fife

  171,942

  162,655

  Glasgow City

  297,819

  280,488

  Highland

  116,861

  112,712

  Inverclyde

  43,894

  44,286

  Midlothian

  41,639

  40,132

  Moray

  42,935

  40,600

  North Ayrshire

  66,870

  67,062

  North Lanarkshire

  165,163

  160,818

  Orkney

  15,756

  14,947

  Perth and Kinross

  57,593

  57,221

  Renfrewshire

  84,710

  82,385

  Scottish Borders

  49,522

  46,425

  Shetland

  24,483

  23,183

  South Ayrshire

  53,847

  45,889

  South Lanarkshire

  149,232

  137,007

  Stirling

  41,655

  38,478

  West Dunbartonshire

  50,896

  51,861

  West Lothian

  85,289

  77,231

  Scotland

  2,476,854

  2,372,320

  Note:

  All figures are net current expenditure excluding loan and leasing charges as returned by the individual local authorities to The Scottish Office, adjusted to 1997–98 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Scottish Parliament (Income Tax)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 172, on income tax and the Scottish Parliament, if he will estimate for (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 the extra money which would be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund from a decision to raise income tax by one penny by the Scottish Parliament (i) gross and (ii) net of deductions. [71476]
  647
  Mr. Dewar
  It is currently estimated for 2000–01 that the yield from a decision to increase the basic rate of income tax by one penny for Scottish taxpayers is as follows:

  £ million

  Gross

  Net1

  180

  175

  1 Net of income-related benefits: Working Families Tax Credit, Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Projections are not available for later years.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) by social services authority and (b) in total (i) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99, (ii) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000, (iii) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, (iv) that difference expressed as a percentage of the 1998–99 figure, (v) the special transitional grant for 1998–99, (vi) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000 and the standard spending assessment for personal social services for 1998–99 combined with the special transitional grant for 1998–99, (vii) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000 and the standard spending assessment for personal social services for 1998–99 added to the special transitional grant for 1998–99 and expressed as a percentage of the 1998–99 figure and (viii) the indicative level of specific and special grants for 1999–2000. [71318]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Social Work Services Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE) allocations for authorities relating to items (i) and (iv) are set out in the table. There has been no direct equivalent to the Special Transitional Grant in Scotland. Specific Grants for training and mental illness totalling £22.2 million in 1999–2000 are included n the GAE figures shown.

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

  Social Work GAE

  £ million

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  Change

  Change Percentage

  Aberdeen City

  43.0

  44.9

  1.9

  4.4

  Aberdeenshire

  36.8

  37.8

  1.1

  2.9

  Angus

  22.9

  23.7

  0.8

  3.5

  Argyll & Bute

  19.9

  20.7

  0.8

  3.8

  Clackmannanshire

  9.0

  10

  1.0

  11.3

  Dumfries & Galloway

  27.2

  29.7

  2.5

  9.2

  Dundee City

  35.4

  37.5

  2.1

  5.9

  East Ayrshire

  24.9

  26.6

  1.7

  6.9

  East Dunbartonshire

  15.4

  16.2

  0.8

  5.2

  East Lothian

  16.8

  18.3

  1.5

  8.8

  East Renfrewshire

  13.7

  14.4

  0.7

  4.8

  Edinburgh, City of

  99.4

  100.5

  1.1

  1.1

  Eilean Siar

  7.7

  7.5

  -0.2

  -2.3

  Falkirk

  28.7

  29.8

  1.2

  4.1

  Fife

  67.1

  72.1

  5.0

  7.4

  Glasgow City

  174.2

  179.1

  4.8

  2.8

  Highland

  37.9

  40.2

  2.3

  6.1

  Inverclyde

  19.6

  20.5

  0.9

  4.3

  Midlothian

  13.3

  14.3

  1.0

  7.6

  Moray

  14.5

  15.3

  0.7

  5.1

  North Ayrshire

  28.9

  31.3

  2.4

  8.5

  648

  Social Work GAE

  £ million

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  Change

  Change Percentage

  North Lanarkshire

  63.0

  67.9

  4.9

  7.8

  Orkney Islands

  3.5

  3.7

  0.2

  4.6

  Perth & Kinross

  25.0

  26.6

  1.6

  6.4

  Renfrewshire

  35.4

  27.0

  1.6

  4.4

  Scottish Borders

  21.0

  22.2

  1.2

  5.5

  Shetland Islands

  4.3

  4.3

  0.0

  0.3

  South Ayrshire

  23.0

  24.1

  1.1

  4.9

  South Lanarkshire

  55.9

  58.6

  2.7

  4.9

  Stirling

  16.1

  16.9

  0.8

  4.9

  West Dunbartonshire

  20.6

  22.0

  1.4

  6.7

  West Lothian

  26.2

  27.5

  1.4

  5.2

  Scotland Total

  1,050.2

  1,101.0

  150.8

  14.8

  1 In addition £0.5 million (0.3 per cent.) is being transferred from local to central training

  Salmon
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the procedures adopted in Norway to deal with infectious salmon anaemic outbreaks. [71439]

  Mr. Macdonald
  ISA has been present in Norway since the mid–1980s, and new outbreaks of the disease have persisted in recent years. The Norwegian authorities require fish to be withdrawn from sea cages when a specified level of mortality has been reached. In other respects their controls are similar to those applied in the UK, notably the requirement for infected farms to be fallowed for up to 6 months. The Secretary of State continues to believe that the eradication of the current outbreak of ISA in Scottish waters is a realistic and desirable objective, and current measures are directed to that end, in line with EU legislation. The Norwegian authorities have been very helpful in offering information and advice, and regular contact is being maintained.

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

  Closed Circuit Television (Witnesses)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases at(a) the Sheriff Court and (b) the High Court closed circuit television equipment has been employed in the examination of vulnerable witnesses in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement. [70250]

  Mr. McLeish
  Figures shown in the table are for the use of closed circuit television equipment in the relatively small number of cases which proceeded following successful application. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  High Court

  Sheriff Court

  19911,2

  0

  0

  19921

  8

  1

  19931,3

  5

  2

  1994

  3

  6

  1995

  1

  4

  1996

  2

  0

  1997

  5

  0

  1998

  3

  7

  1Edinburgh and Glasgow only

  2October to December

  3January to May

  649
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sheriff courts which are equipped with closed circuit television; and if he will make a statement. [70249]

  Mr. McLeish
  The sheriff courts which are equipped with closed circuit television are:

  Aberdeen

  Airdrie

  Edinburgh

  Falkirk

  Glasgow

  Greenock.

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

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 170, on Scottish Enterprise, if he will ensure that a copy of the letter from the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise is placed in the Library. [71325]

  Mr. Dewar
  A copy of the letter from the Scottish Enterprise Chairman will be placed in the Library in due course. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount spent by Scottish Enterprise on graduate placement schemes in the most recent year for which figures are available. [71385]

  Mr. Dewar
  Expenditure on the delivery of graduate placement schemes is an operational matter for the Scottish Enterprise network. I have asked the Scottish Enterprise Chairman to write to the hon. Member. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to Public funds of the Metropolitan police in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [72144]

  Mr. Straw
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District has estimated that net revenue expenditure for the Metropolitan police for 1999–2000 will be £1,880,068,000 and he intends to issue precepts which would result in a council tax for police purposes of £77.44 for a property in valuation Band D.

  I have discussed this with representatives of local authorities in the Metropolitan police district.

  I have informed the Receiver that I am content with the estimates and the proposed precept.
  650
  In Inner London, the Receiver's precepts cover also the Inner London Magistrates Courts Service and the Inner London Probation Service. His proposals would result in council taxes for these services of £6.40 and £8.78 respectively for a property in valuation Band D.

  Compared with the current year, the proposed precepts would result in an increase in the Receiver's council tax of 5.2 per cent. in Inner London and 9.5 per cent. in the rest of the Metropolitan police district.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give further details about the operation of the asylum seeker support arrangements for which provision is made in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [72145]

  Mr. Straw
  On 17 February, I will place in the Library a draft Process Manual which describes the way the Home Office proposes to discharge its responsibilities for supporting asylum seekers, and what they may expect. The draft Manual will be revised and may be expanded as more detailed elements of the scheme are designed and settled. Once its policy is in final form, it will be sub-edited into clearer English.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the towns and cities where accommodation will be provided for asylum seekers under the terms of the Immigration and Asylum Bill; what estimate he has made of the cost of such accommodation; how many places will be made available; what kind of accommodation will be provided; what standards will be required; and if he will make a statement. [71670]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No towns or cities have been identified at this stage. Asylum seekers will be dispersed to cluster areas. No cluster areas have yet been designated, but the intention is that such areas would have available accommodation (without resorting to sink estates) and placements would take account of the value of linking to existing communities and the support of voluntary and community groups.

  No estimate has been made of the cost of the accommodation alone. As a result of the comprehensive spending review provision of £350 million in 1999–2000, £300 million in 2000–01 and £250 million in 2001–02 was added to the Home Office baseline to cover the overall asylum support costs. The project team which has been set up to take forward the asylum support provisions in the Immigration and Asylum Bill are currently considering the development of cluster areas, the amount and type of accommodation which will be needed, and associated standards.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in considering the cases of those applicants for political asylum who entered the country prior to July 1993 indicating how many cases had been(a) considered, (b) granted indefinite leave to remain and (c) personally interviewed; what checks are made on whether an applicant is a genuine refugee; and if he will make a statement. [71671]
  651
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on the outcome of asylum applications made before 1 July 1993 was given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 422.

  Where these cases are dealt with under the measures announced in July 1998 the substantive asylum claim is not considered. However, the cases of applicants who do not qualify to be considered under the backlog clearance measures, or who claim that they have been disadvantaged by the grant of indefinite leave rather than asylum, will be considered in the normal way against the criteria in the 1951 United Nations Convention.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in considering the cases of those applicants for political asylum who made applications between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995. [71669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  About 88,0001 applications for asylum were made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995. The status of those cases which had been decided at 31 December 1998 is set out in the table.

  An estimated 20,000 cases remained undecided, but this estimate is likely to be reduced following a recent count of Immigration and Nationality Directorate's outstanding work.

  1Excluding dependents.

  Percentage of total decisions1

  Granted Asylum

  6

  Granted Exceptional Leave

  13

  Refused after full consideration

  69

  Refused on 3rd country grounds

  4

  Paragraph 340 refusal2

  8

  1Percentages are estimates rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2Paragraph 340 of the Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support an asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assumptions he has made as to when his proposed new system for supporting asylum seekers as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Bill will come into operation; how many staff will be recruited to operate the system and from where they will be drawn; what will the likely cost of the new system; what will be its budget; and if he will make a statement. [71726]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our current plans are that the new asylum support system will come into effect on 1 April 2000. But much depends on the progress of the Immigration and Asylum Bill through Parliament, the necessary planning arrangements, and the provision of support services.

  The Home Office is currently considering the number of staff required in the Asylum Support Directorate, which will be the new body set up to administer the new asylum support arrangements.

  Information on the source of those staff, likely costs and the budget is not known at this stage because it is to some extent dependent on Parliamentary progress.
  652
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct checks at(a) Heathrow and (b) Dover, to determine how many political asylum seekers are now arriving in Britain without documents; and if he will make a statement. [71727]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Comprehensive immigration checks are already in place at Heathrow and Dover. All arriving passengers are examined by an Immigration Officer and are required to hold valid travel documents including visas where necessary. In addition to normal immigration controls there are regular surveillance operations at Heathrow and Dover.

  The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is also applied and financial charges under that Act are levied on carriers who bring inadequately documented passengers to the United Kingdom. Statistics on these passengers are recorded by the Immigration Service.

  Immigration Service
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the refurbishment works at Lunar House on the operation of the Immigration Service. [71728]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 3 December 1998,Official Report, column 251.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of work on the draft Freedom of Information Bill. [70864]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 10 February 1999,Official Report, columns 257–59.

  Parentline and Childline
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much (a) core and(b) project funding he is providing in the current financial year for (i) Parentline and (ii) Childline; and how much he is providing for Childline's work on bullying in schools. [70707]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the current financial year, the Home Office is providing £108,000 to Parentline to help them expand the service they provide into a national freephone helpline for parents. This is in addition to £25,000 from the Department of Health under their section 64 grants programme and £35,000 funding from the Department for Education and Employment to the National Stepfamilies Association for a joint project with Parentline.

  The Home Office does not fund Childline.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) average, and (b) longest time taken by his Department t o grant leave to enter or remain to a person whose asylum appeal had

  653
  been allowed in 1998; and if applicants were entitled to (i) benefits and (ii) family reunion as a refugee pending the grant of such leave. [70718]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information regarding the time between a final appeal outcome and a subsequent decision to grant leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  A person whose asylum appeal has been allowed is not entitled to benefits of family reunion until leave as a refugee has actually been granted. Once such leave has been granted benefits will be backdated to the date they ceased.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to deport made under section 3(5)(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 with a right of appeal not limited by section 5 of the Immigration Act 1998 have been(a) made, (b) withdrawn after an appeal against the decision was allowed and (c) withdrawn in other circumstances since the introduction of section 5 of the 1998 Act. [70728]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988, as amended, places certain restrictions on the right of appeal where a decision is taken to make a deportation order against a person under section 3(5)(a) or section 3(5)(aa) of the Immigration Act 1971, or under section 3(5)(c) against a family member of such a person.

  Information at the level of detail requested could be obtained only through the examination of individual records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many final decisions on asylum applications were taken by an officer of administrative officer grade in 1997 and 1998, broken down by (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful applications. [70733]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information on how many final decisions on asylum applications taken by an administrative officer grade in 1997 and 1998 could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact which delays to the development of the new casework system are having on the processing of asylum claims and other services provided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [70908]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworking operation is at present being reorganised and new ways of working are being introduced as part of the business change and modernisation initiative. The disruption has caused a temporary reduction in service standards and in numbers of casework decisions.

  Under the privately financed contract for the Casework Programme the financial risk of late delivery of elements of the Programme is carried by Siemens Business Services. There is no reason to believe the delay in delivery of the full casework information technology application will reduce casework decisions or service standards over the contract period.
  654

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were removed as illegal entrants in each year from 1993 to date. [70736]

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

  Removals and voluntary departures as a result of illegal entry action, 1993–First Half 1998 1

  Number of persons

  Removed as illegal entrant

  Departed voluntarily2

  1993

  3,410

  380

  1994

  2,740

  550

  1995

  2,570

  590

  1996

  2,860

  540

  1997

  3,690

  820

  19981

  1,990

  420

  1 1998 figures relate to the first half year, 1 January to 30 June.

  2 Persons departing 'voluntarily' after illegal entry action had been initiated against them.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded.

  Leave to Remain Applications
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for further leave to remain have been(a) made in the prescribed form and (b) treated as invalid because they were not made in the prescribed form for each quarter since prescribed forms were introduced. [70729]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 25 November 1996, it has been obligatory for persons wishing to make an application to vary the duration and/or conditions of their leave in the United Kingdom to use the application forms prescribed for this purpose. Statistical information on the total number of applications received was recorded from February 1997 onwards, but this did not record individual categories. Information on the total number of applications received and the number of applications deemed invalid is given in the table. It is not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown between the different types of application forms received.

  Valid applications

  Invalid applications

  1997

  Ql

  18,639

  13,264

  Q2

  20,395

  11,059

  Q3

  23,162

  9,309

  Q4

  29,628

  8,180

  1998

  Ql

  27,115

  6,822

  Q2

  26,858

  5,711

  Q3

  27,563

  4,625

  Q4

  22,904

  3,754

  1 Counting during Quarter 1 did not begin until part way through the quarter

  The figures recorded relate to postal applications only.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on granting family reunion to persons with
  655
  exceptional leave to remain for less than four years in the United Kingdom where they are unable to maintain and accommodate family members. [70734]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  People with less than four years' exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, whether or not they are able to satisfy the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the Immigration Rules, are not normally allowed to be joined by their pre-existing spouse or minor dependent children under the terms of the family reunion concession.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain for an indefinite period on the grounds of marriage to a British or settled spouse from(a) women and (b) men were (i) granted and (ii) refused in (x) 1996, (y) 1997 and (z) 1998 to the latest convenient date; and of those refused, for each year, how many were refused because his Department was not satisfied (1) that the couple intended to stay together permanently as husband and wife, (2) that there was adequate accommodation available, (3) that there was adequate maintenance available and (4) other grounds; and of those refused for reason (1), in how many cases domestic violence was alleged. [70710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. Allegations of domestic violence are not separately recorded.

  Grants and refusals of applications for indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of marriage 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  19981

  Women

  Grants

  17,570

  16,160

  18,300

  Refusals:

  No intention to live together

  380

  250

  160

  Other reasons

  10

  10

  20

  Men

  Grants

  11,900

  10,700

  12,900

  Refusals:

  No intention to live together

  430

  190

  160

  Other reasons

  20

  20

  10

  1 Provisional

  Pagers (Security Service)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls exist to regulate the interception by MI5 of signals from pagers. [71492]

  Mr. Straw
  In accordance with section 5(b) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, members of the Security Service may, in the course of their duty as Crown Servants, use wireless telegraphy apparatus to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message sent by means of pager. They may do so only in the performance of the Service's functions as laid down in the Security Service Act 1989, and as with any other kind of information obtained by the Service, the disclosure of the product from such interception is regulated by the terms of that Act. In addition, the interception of such messages is subject to the mechanisms established by the Act for dealing with complaints.
  656

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter his Department's recommendation of £35 to £40 as a reasonable weekly allowance for au pairs working a maximum of 25 hours under rule 88 of the Immigration Rules. [71735]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  With effect from 1 April, overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs will be subject to the National Minimum Wage provisions.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage members of the Afro-Caribbean community to register to vote in elections. [70133]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government carry out an annual advertising campaign to encourage all electors to register, but particularly targeted at the young and members of ethnic minorities. The Home Office also has regular contact with Operation Black Vote. In addition, my Working Party on Electoral Procedures has been considering how to maximise registration, and will shortly be issuing guidance to electoral registration officers.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have for a public information campaign about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. [70134]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are considering this, alongside other priorities, and will announce our decision as soon as we can.

  Visas (Teachers)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many working holidaymaker visas were issued to overseas teachers in the last three years for which figures are available; [71440]

  (2) how many working holidaymaker visas are currently issued to overseas teachers; and how many of these are known to be staying in (a) London and (b)the rest of the United Kingdom. [71441]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available in the form requested.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71449]

  Mr. Straw
  The information for my Department and its agencies is as follows:

  Year

  Home Office

  Prison Service

  Forensic Science Service

  1990

  475

  —

  1991

  1452

  —

  1992

  340

  —

  1993

  319

  56

  657

  Year

  Home Office

  Prison Service

  Forensic Science Service

  1994

  314

  68

  1995

  308

  61

  1996

  404

  57

  1997

  386

  67

  11

  1998

  524

  73

  17

  1 Figures include any press releases issued for the Passport Agency and Forensic Science Service (FSS) until April 1997. Thereafter, FSS figures are shown separately.

  I shall ask the Chief Executives of the non-departmental bodies to write to the hon. Member shortly with information about any press releases they may have issued.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71464]

  Mr. Straw
  Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communication Service are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the Working Guide for Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  The primary costs of issuing press releases relate to their electronic distribution, which is carried out through the Central Office of Information, and postage. The estimated total of these costs is £36,124. No central record of other costs which may be involved (e.g. faxing, e-mail etc.) is available.

  Asylum and Immigration (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1995; and how many have resulted in convictions. [70735]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 8 of the 1996 Act came into force in January 1997. No prosecutions were brought in either that year or in 1998.

  Our general approach towards the enforcement of this section remains as in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 119.

  Marriages of Convenience
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the scale of abuse of the immigration system by those entering into marriages as a means of obtaining settlement in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [71654]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Precise figures to reflect the use of a sham marriage to obtain settlement in this country are not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. The perception of some agencies most involved in tackling this abuse is that it is considerable and widespread.
  658

  Appointments (Police Authorities)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police authority(a) the number of names submitted to him for appointment as independent members to serve from April 1999, (b) the number of existing police authority members included in those names, (c) the number of names returned by him to the police authority concerned and (d) the number of existing members of police authorities included in the list returned by him. [71191]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is provided in the table for the 37 police authorities (established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996) to which I have returned names so far. I have added column(e) to show the number of independent member vacancies for each police authority.

  Police authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Avon and Somerset

  12

  2

  6

  1

  3

  Bedfordshire

  20

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  3

  10

  2

  5

  Cheshire

  20

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Cumbria

  16

  4

  8

  2

  5

  Derbyshire

  11

  2

  5

  1

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  20

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Dorset

  20

  5

  10

  3

  5

  Durham

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  Dyfed-Powys

  23

  5

  11

  3

  6

  Essex

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  Gloucestershire

  20

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Greater Manchester

  24

  3

  12

  2

  6

  Gwent

  20

  4

  10

  3

  5

  Hampshire

  12

  3

  6

  2

  3

  Hertfordshire

  20

  4

  10

  2

  5

  Humberside

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  Kent

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  Lancashire

  12

  1

  6

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  20

  2

  10

  2

  5

  Norfolk

  20

  5

  10

  3

  5

  Northamptonshire

  19

  4

  9

  4

  5

  Northumbria

  20

  3

  10

  2

  5

  North Wales

  20

  3

  10

  2

  5

  North Yorkshire

  16

  3

  8

  1

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  South Wales

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  South Yorkshire

  20

  5

  10

  3

  5

  Staffordshire

  20

  3

  10

  3

  5

  Surrey

  20

  4

  10

  2

  5

  Sussex

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  Thames Valley

  20

  3

  10

  2

  5

  Warwickshire

  10

  1

  5

  1

  4

  West Mercia

  20

  5

  10

  3

  5

  West Midlands

  16

  3

  8

  2

  4

  West Yorkshire

  20

  5

  10

  3

  5

  Wiltshire

  20

  3

  10

  2

  5

  Homosexual Advance Defence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the first report of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department's Homosexual Advance Defence Working Party; and if he will make a statement. [71084]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Final report of the Attorney General of New South Wales (Australia) Department's review of the Homosexual Advance Defence was issued in September 1998. The report concluded that it must be a standard of the law that claims of non-violent homosexual advances can neither excuse fatal violence nor mitigate
  659
  any offence of violence. It makes a number of recommendations, including legislative reform to exclude a non-violent homosexual advance from forming the basis of the defence of provocation. It is not clear whether the Government of New South Wales have accepted this recommendation.

  We have no current plans to review the law on provocation as it applies in England and Wales.

  Immigration Applications
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average applicants(a) for leave to remain for a year on the grounds of marriage, (b) for indefinite leave to remain on grounds of marriage, (c) for indefinite leave to remain as a child of a parent or parents settled here, (d) for indefinite leave to remain as the parent of a child or children settled here,

  Average length of time (in months) taken to decide applications

  applications decided in quarter ending:

  March

  June

  September

  December

  March

  June

  September

  December

  Application made for:

  1997

  1997

  1997

  1997

  1998

  1998

  1998

  1998

  Leave to remain for a year on the grounds of marriage

  9

  9

  8

  8

  10

  10

  8

  5

  Indefinite leave to remain on grounds of marriage

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  2

  Indefinite leave to remain as a child of parent(s) settled here1

  4

  6

  5

  5

  5

  7

  6

  5

  Indefinite leave to remain as the parent of child(ren) settled here1

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  7

  5

  Extension of stay as a student

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  2

  Asylum when the person was recognised as a refugee (pre-1993 Act applications)2

  56

  58

  61

  62

  66

  69

  79

  81

  Asylum when the person was recognised as a refugee (post-1993 applications)2

  22

  22

  22

  20

  21

  19

  19

  20

  Asylum when the person was granted exceptional leave to enter or remain (pre-1993 act applications)2

  63

  73

  73

  79

  85

  85

  87

  90

  Asylum when the person was granted exceptional leave to enter or remain (post-1993 act applications)2

  12

  15

  14

  14

  13

  15

  13

  15

  Naturalisation as a British citizen on the grounds of residence

  16

  17

  19

  21

  20

  21

  22

  21

  Naturalisation as a British citizen on the grounds of marriage to a British citizen

  15

  16

  18

  20

  20

  21

  21

  20

  Registration of a minor as a British citizen

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  9

  7

  7

  1 Excluding decisions where indefinite leave to remain was refused

  2 ie The asylum and immigration appeals act 1993

  Asylum Detainees
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many people detained under the Immigration Act powers he has (i) demanded and (ii) received the expenses of detention under(a) Schedule 2 paragraph 19(1) and (b) Schedule 2 paragraph 20(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 from the carrier, in each year since 1993 to the latest convenient date in 1998; and what is the annual total of moneys received. [70709]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Records show that for each of the financial years between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1998, the Immigration Service demanded payment for:

  7,219 people in 1993–94

  5,226 people in 1994–95

  10,868 people in 1995–96

  15,182 people in 1996–97

  19,126 people in 1997–98

  Payments were received for:

  6,495 people in 1993–94

  4,506 people in 1994–95

  660
  (e) for an extension of stay as a student, (f) for asylum when the person was recognised as a refugee, (g) for asylum when the person was granted exceptional leave to enter or remain, (h) for naturalisation as a British citizen on the grounds of residence, (j) for naturalisation as a British citizen on the grounds of marriage to a British citizen, (k) for registration of a minor as a British citizen, whose applications were decided at the end of (i) March 1997, (ii) June 1997, (iii) September 1997, (iv) December 1997, (v) March 1998, (vi) June 1998, (vii) September 1998 and (viii) December 1998 had waited since applying; and how long a person applying in January 1999 in each of these categories may expect to wait for a decision. [71414]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. No target times have been set for the completion of applications in these categories made during January 1999.

  9,796 people in 1995–96

  13,537 people in 1996–97

  13,168 people in 1997–98.

  The figures shown are for Schedule 2 paragraph 19(1) and 20(1) cases. A separate breakdown between these categories could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The monies received for each of the financial years shown is as follows:

  £767,760 in 1993–94

  £291,063 in 1994–95

  £373,101 in 1995–96

  £709,199 in 1996–97

  £1,360,690 in 1997–98

  EU Nationals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of each European Union country have been given temporary admission on arrival in the UK, in each year from 1993 to the latest date for which figures are available. [70745]
  661
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is available for the 12 largest ports, and is given in the table. The data relate to persons whose European Union nationality was initially in doubt but later found or assumed to be correct.

  European Union Nationals given temporary admission

  Year

  Nationality

  Number1

  1993

  France

  1

  Greece

  1

  United kingdom

  12

  14

  1994

  united kingdom

  8

  1995

  Italy

  1

  Portugal

  3

  United kingdom

  24

  28

  1996

  France

  2

  Greece

  1

  Italy

  1

  Portugal

  6

  United kingdom

  10

  20

  1997

  france

  6

  Greece

  1

  Italy

  2

  Netherlands

  1

  United kingdom

  2

  18

  1998

  France

  1

  Italy

  1

  Netherlands

  1

  Portugal

  2

  United kingdom

  13

  18

  1 Data relate to Heathrow (4 terminals), Gatwick (2), Manchester (2), Dover east, Harwich, Stansted, Waterloo.

  Airside Transit Visas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people of which nationalities required to hold an airside transit visa were(a) granted and (b) refused such visas in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [70737]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information by nationality is not centrally recorded. The available information, which is in the Library, is by region and relates to the British diplomatic post where the visa was applied for, which is not necessarily in the country of which the applicant is a national. Data for 1996 and 1997 are given in the table. No data are yet available for 1998.

  Grants and refusals of applications for direct transit visas, by geographical of place of application,1996–97

  1996

  1997

  Region

  Issued

  Refused

  Issued

  Refused

  Equatorial Africa

  2,330

  150

  2,670

  100

  Southern Africa

  70

  100

  90

  1—

  Near East/North Africa

  40

  1—

  70

  10

  Middle East

  4,950

  40

  7,120

  100

  Far East

  1,930

  20

  800

  20

  South Asia

  860

  20

  1,490

  20

  South East Asia

  650

  2—

  220

  2—

  Australasia/South Pacific

  10

  2—

  20

  2—

  Western Europe

  3,230

  10

  3,570

  20

  Central Europe/FSU

  380

  1—

  280

  10

  662

  Grants and refusals of applications for direct airside transit visas, by geographical region of place of application, 1996–97

  1996

  1997

  Region

  Issued

  Refused

  Issued

  Refused

  Southern Europe

  2,040

  20

  2,980

  10

  North America

  6,130

  1—

  9,380

  10

  West Indies and Atlantic

  270

  10

  240

  10

  Latin America

  310

  2—

  100

  1—

  Global Totals

  23,200

  280

  29,000

  300

  1Negligible(i.e. five or fewer)

  2Nil

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 regarding conspiracy in this country to commit terrorist attacks abroad. [70750]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998–Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom came into effect on 4 September 1998. Information on prosecutions from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database will begin to become available in the Spring of this year.

  Mounted Police
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces which have mounted sections; how many horses there are in each case; and what plans he has to ensure that present numbers are maintained.[71042]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on police mounted sections is not collected centrally. Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the allocation of resources within a force is decided locally by the chief constable. The decision whether to maintain a mounted section is an operational matter for the chief constable to decide.

  Drugs Misuse Programme
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of his Department's budget has been allocated to implementing the Government's Drugs Misuse Programme. [70806]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1998–99, estimated expenditure on specific programmes to tackle the misuse of drugs represented about 0.65 per cent. of total central expenditure in the Home Office. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement this figure will rise to over 1.5 per cent. in 1999–2000 with the allocation of an additional £34 million.

  Mediation UK
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department received an application for funding from Mediation UK; what evaluation he has made of it; and what action he proposes to take. [70206]

  Mr. Boateng
  An application for funding by Mediation UK was received by the Home Office in September 1998 and was duly considered. It was concluded that, when compared with some 70 competing bids, a sufficient case
  663
  had not been made for support. The Director of Mediation was informed of the decision last month. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have since made representations to the Home Office. These will be considered and taken into account. I have agreed to meet the Director of Mediation UK to discuss future funding.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 604, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71011]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that the systems in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [71091]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate information technology (IT) systems have been audited for millennium compliance. A programme of upgrade, replacing or decommissioning different systems is in progress and on course to ensure that all necessary IT support continues into the year 2000.

  South Wales Police Force
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed by South Wales Police; and what the figure was in May 1997. [71296]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on police numbers is collected at the end of March and September. The statistics for the period requested are set out in the table:

  Total officer strength

  30 September 1998

  2,946

  30 September 1997

  2,990

  30 March 1997

  2,976

  The figures exclude officers seconded to National Crime Squad, or central services such as National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Police Training.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Petrol Taxation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the average retail price of petrol per litre in each country of the European Union, the tax element in these prices and the proportion of the final price accounted for by taxation in each case. [70762]
  664
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The information requested for unleaded petrol prices in mid-December 1998 is as follows:

  Average price. (pence per litre)

  Total

  Of which taxes

  Percentage of tax

  United Kingdom

  63.9

  53.5

  83.7

  Austria

  54.7

  38.2

  69.9

  Belgium

  58.5

  45.7

  78.2

  Denmark

  56.3

  43.0

  76.4

  Finland

  61.0

  50.3

  82.5

  France

  62.7

  52.1

  83.1

  Germany

  55.4

  42.8

  77.3

  Greece

  41.1

  28.3

  68.8

  Ireland

  51.3

  35.5

  69.1

  Italy

  62.0

  47.4

  76.4

  Luxembourg

  42.6

  28.9

  67.9

  Netherlands

  64.3

  49.9

  77.6

  Portugal

  54.9

  40.8

  74.4

  Spain

  44.1

  31.7

  71.8

  Sweden

  58.5

  44.7

  76.4

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the representations which his Department has received objecting to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if he will make a statement. [71320]

  Mr. Wilson
  Negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment are no longer taking place. The Department received a number of representations during the course of the negotiations, which we took carefully into account.

  Postal Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations(a) his Department and (b) the Royal Mail undertook with the Periodical Publishers Association concerning changes to postal charges announced on 14 January; and what notice was given of the proposed changes. [71109]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has had no consultations with the Periodical Publishers Association about the proposed postal tariff changes, which are primarily a matter for the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users National Council. I understand from the Post Office that they are in regular contact with major trade associations about long term strategy for postal services.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of staff(a) in his Department and (b) in each of the agencies for which he is responsible and their location in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English regions. [70471]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Information on the topic is published in "Civil Service Statistics 1998", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  665

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he will publish detailed guidance on the National Minimum Wage Regulations. [71737]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A preliminary guidance booklet is already available and we have set up a telephone helpline to deal with specific inquiries. Definitive guidance on the National Minimum Wage will be published shortly.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in response to the consultation on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations. [71738]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department of Trade and Industry received some 300 written responses to the consultation exercise on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations. In addition, officials from the Department also met representatives from a number of interested bodies, including the CBI, TUC, EEF, NFU, LGMB, UNISON, GMB, FRES and NESTOR.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the estimated date of commencement for the National Minimum Wage Regulations. [71736]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The National Minimum Wage Regulations were laid before Parliament today and take effect on 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlie the delay in laying before the House the National Minimum Wage Regulations. [71731]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There has been no delay.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the drafting of the National Minimum Wage Regulations was completed; [71734]

  (2) on what date he intends to lay the National Minimum Wage Regulations. [71733]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The drafting of the National Minimum Wage Regulations has been completed and the Regulations were laid before Parliament for approval today.

  South Asia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the way in which the UK is advancing its policies on sustainable development through international trade with South Asia. [70998]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The Department of Trade and Industry, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development (DfID), consistently work together with the Governments of South Asia to promote sustainable development in the region through both international trade and overseas investment.

  Trade liberalisation and increased international trade have also enabled developing countries such as those in South Asia to derive more benefit from access to overseas markets and from inward investment. This in turn increases prosperity and enables developing countries to raise their standards of environmental and social
  666
  protection. We will continue to support actively this process both bilaterally and through international fora such as the WTO and EU where we work to enhance access for trade from South Asia.

  The UK is a major trading and investment partner for the countries of South Asia. An area critical to sustainable development is that of infrastructure. In this regard the Department works closely with the private sector and other bodies, such as DfID, the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, to maximise the UK's contribution to the development of South Asia.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons he was not able to provide a figure for expenditure on public opinion research in his answer to the hon. Member for Bath of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 315; and for what reasons this did not apply to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 17 February 1998, Official Report, columns 567–69. [70669]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: Information on the cost of public opinion research is not separately identified. The list of surveys and cost given in the answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 17 February 1998, Official Report, columns 567–69 included all surveys which involved an element of public opinion gathering but it is not possible separately to identify the costs of that element.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of web sites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each web site (i) the topics covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each web site for each of the next three years. [70965]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Management of the web sites of my Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies, and Government Offices for the Regions is devolved to those with responsibility for particular areas. The costs associated with setting up and on-going operation of sites are not held or collected centrally and therefore the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The same is true both for future expenditure plans and for information on final costs versus initial budget estimates.

  In terms of topics covered, the DTI site and associated sites now offer information on nearly every area of the Department's responsibilities and the central DTI site (those within the Web domain "www.dti.gov.uk") received an average of just over 3,000,000 hits per month over the last six months. Again, hits for all the sites for which my Department is responsible could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 315, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his

  667
  agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71018]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Expenditure on direct mail and advertising incurred through the COI and not included in my previous answer was £26,000 and £1.14 million respectively.

  Chief Executives of the Department's Executive Agencies have been asked to write to the hon. Member direct. Expenditure for non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 315, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71019]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Information on expenditure by task forces, review bodies and focus groups is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure from DTI' s centrally-managed budgets for publications and all other forms of publicity, except advertising and direct mail, since May 1997 has been £6.59 million.

  Privatised Research Establishments (Sale)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions apply to the sale of privatised research establishments to new owners. [69663]

  Mr. Battle
  Because research establishments provide a wide range of outputs and services, Government considered the details of each potential sale on a case by case basis. Restrictions relating to the re-sale of privatised researched establishments will depend on the original terms of sale of each privatised research establishment.

  St. Kilda
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the potential impact on the natural environment around St. Kilda following the decision to grant a licence for oil exploration. [70990]

  Mr. Battle
  The advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters) was fully taken into consideration in the decision about which blocks should be offered for licence in the 17th Round of offshore petroleum licensing. In the light of the JNCC's advice, no blocks were offered for licence within 25 miles of St. Kilda. In the event, the nearest block for which a licence was awarded is 45 miles from the island.

  Any deep drillings, as well as developments for the commercial extraction of oil or gas and the construction of pipelines, are also subject to project-specific consent under the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998. These implement the Environmental Impact Assessment
  668
  Directive (85/337/EEC) across the whole of the UK Continental Shelf. They require that before making any decision about the granting of consent for specific petroleum projects, the Secretary of State must consider the likely environmental impact of those projects. Under the Regulations, the JNCC and the relevant fisheries departments are consulted about all applications for consent and where they recommend that a full environmental statement be required, that statement must be made available to the public for their comments and the Secretary of State must take into consideration any comments when making his decision about consent for the relevant project.

  Companies carrying out seismic surveys on the UK Continental Shelf are required to follow guidelines produced by the JNCC to reduce the possible impact of noise during surveys. Reports of cetaceans sighted during these surveys are published by the JNCC annually.

  Assisted Area Status (Ystradgynlais)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will designate the Ystradgynlais area in Powys as having assisted area status under derogation 92/3c. [71323]

  Mr. Wills
  No decisions have been taken on the review, but careful consideration will be given to the needs of all areas.

  Business Excellence Model
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Government policy on the use of the Business Excellence Model in SMEs. [70150]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are supporting the use of the Business Excellence Model as a framework for businesses to adopt a systematic approach to business improvement. DTI is a founder member of the British Quality Foundation, which is responsible for developing and disseminating the model in the UK. DTI best practice materials have been developed around this model and also promote its use. Furthermore, the Department is encouraging Business Links to use the Business Excellence Model in their work with SMEs and it will also form part of the recently announced CBI/DTI "Fit for the Future" campaign.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects details to be announced of the scheme to enable corporate subscribers to opt out of receiving unsolicited direct marketing faxes. [71068]

  Mr. Wills
  Under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) (Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998, the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL) is responsible for establishing a scheme to enable corporate subscribers to opt out from receiving unsolicited direct marketing faxes. The Director General
  669
  of Telecommunications has issued invitations to tender to run the scheme, and expects to award a contract at the end of March. The successful tenderer will announce details of the scheme shortly thereafter.

  Unsolicited Telephone Calls
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to regulate unsolicited direct marketing telephone calls to private individuals. [71069]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have addressed this issue in the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) (Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998, which come into force on 1 May. The Regulations establish an "opt-out" scheme for individual subscribers (private individuals and sole traders in the UK, as well as partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) who do not wish to receive unsolicited direct marketing calls. The Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL) is responsible for establishing the opt-out scheme. The Director General of Telecommunications has issued invitations to tender to run the scheme, and expects to award a contract at the end of March.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since I May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70036]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathon Crowe as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the Government in their important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior Counsel whom departments are expected to use for the rest of the government's civil litigation. The panels currently comprise 103 banisters from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior banisters. The Attorney-General's individual nomination is required before a barrister who is not one of the approved panels can be instructed to appear for the government in litigation.

  DSS executive NDPBs

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Pensions Compensation Board (PCB)

  Voluntary

  Statutory Requirement

  Voluntary

  Statutory Requirement

  Have a statutory base?

  yes

  yes

  Admit members of public to all board or committee meetings?

  Not practicable

  —

  1Not practicable

  —

  Hold public meetings?

  No

  —

  No

  —

  Have lay or consumer representatives on their boards?

  2—

  —

  2—

  —

  Operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure?

  3Yes

  —

  —

  4Yes

  Subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner?

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  670
  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Treasury Solicitor and their Departmental legal advisers, for example where the relevant expertise lies in the private sector. The relationship is subject to the usual confidentiality which operates between lawyer and client.

  On 1 September 1995 the DSS established framework agreements for the supply of legal services with three firms of solicitors—Bird & Bird, Dibb Lupton & Allsop, and Wansboroughs Willey Hargrave. Under that framework agreement the DSS HQ and its Agencies have used those firms for major information technology contracts, some of which are continuing. However specifying sums of money paid to them would involve disproportionate costs.

  The framework agreements have recently been re-let, the successful solicitors being Bird & Bird, Dibb Lupton & Allsop, Simmonds & Simmonds and Eversheds.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69979]

  (2) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69959]

  (3) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69830]

  (4) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner; [69910]

  (5) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69944]

  Mr. Timms
  This Department sponsors two executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). The information for these bodies is set out in the table.
  671

  DSS executive NDPBs

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Pensions Compensation Board (PCB)

  Voluntary

  Statutory Requirement

  Voluntary

  Statutory Requirement

  Publish minutes of meetings?

  No

  —

  No

  —

  Publish agendas and documents for those meetings?

  No

  —

  No

  —

  Publish a register of members' interests?

  5Yes

  —

  5Yes

  —

  1 PCB meets when there is a claim for compensation and will potentially be considering commercially confidential information. The board may hold oral hearings to gather information and these could be held publicly if parties agree.

  2The OPRA and PCB boards are made up of representatives nominated, according to the requirement of the legislation governing the bodies, from various parts of the pensions industry, and organisations such as the TUC and CBI. However, the board members do not serve in any type of representative capacity, and in discharging their functions each board member is required to set aside any vested interests.

  3 OPRA'S three-stage complaints procedure is explained in their leaflet 'putting things right—a guide to how we handle complaints'. Complaints which are not resolved either by a complaints officer (stage 1) or the chairman (stage 2) are referred to an independent complaints adjudicator.

  4 PCB'S complaints procedure is explained in 'the pensions compensation board (determinations and review procedures) regulations 1997'

  5 Both the OPRA and PCB boards have agreed codes of conduct based on the model code issued by cabinet office. A register of board members' interests is held and updated on a regular basis. Copies of the register are available from the secretary of each board.

  This Department sponsors five advisor NDPBs. The information for these bodies is in the table.

  DSS Advisory NDPBs

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions (CACWP)

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (DLAAB)

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC)

  Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC)

  War Pensions Committees (WPC)

  Admit members of public to all board or committee meetings?

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Hold Public meetings?

  No

  1No

  No

  No

  No

  Have lay or consumer representatives on their Boards?2

  3Yes

  4Yes

  5—

  6—

  3Yes

  Publish minutes of meetings?

  7Yes

  No

  8Yes

  No

  9Yes

  Publish agendas and documents for those meetings?

  7Yes

  No

  No

  No

  9Yes

  Publish a register of members' interests?

  10Yes

  10Yes

  10Yes

  10Yes

  10Yes

  1 DLAAB meets representatives from groups involved in working with and for people with disabilities. Through this contact the Board is able to gain a different perspective of the needs of people affected by various conditions and take into account their concerns.

  2 These activities are undertaken by a statutory requirement, all other activities are undertaken on a voluntarily basis.

  3 The legislation which governs CACWP and the WPCs requires there to be representatives of ex-service organisations or persons with ex-service experience.

  4 The legislation which governs DLAAB requires there to be at least one member with personal experience of caring for disabled person, and six or more who are disabled persons.

  5 The legislation that governs IIAC requires that the members other than the chairman shall include an equal number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with such organisations as he thinks fit, to represent employers and employed earners respectively.

  6 The legislation that governs SSAC requires that one member must be appointed after consultation with organisations representative of workers, one after consultation with organisations representative of employers, one after consultation with the head of DHSS Northern Ireland, and one member must have experience of work among chronically sick and disabled people and should preferably but not necessarily be a chronically sick or disabled person. However, these members do not act in a representative capacity.

  7 Both the minutes and the agenda/associated papers of CACWP meetings are publicly available. They are circulated to a wider audience than just Committee members, i.e.: all War Pensions Committees and certain ex-service organisations not represented on CACWP. Copies are also available to others on request.

  8 A summary of meetings will be made available on IIAC's website.

  9 Both the minutes and agenda/associated papers of WPC meetings are available on request.

  10 Each Board have agreed a code of conduct, and complied a register of Board members' interests that is available for public inspection.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional costs which would be incurred by including in his package of measures to tackle pensioner poverty the annual uprating of the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with average earnings in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [71481]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The additional costs of uprating the Minimum Income 672
  Guarantee in line with average earnings is estimated to be £260 million in 2000–01 and £560 million in 2001–02.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. The figures are based on forecasts of pensioners in receipt of Income Support consistent with estimates provided for the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings he estimates will be achieved in
  673
  the social security budget for 1999–2000 as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage within (a)the northern region and (b) the city of Sunderland. [70369]

  Mr. Darling
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimates of the effect on DSS benefit expenditure of the introduction of the national minimum wage

  £ million (1999/2000)

  Benefit

  Savings

  Income Support

  10

  Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based)

  10

  Housing Benefit

  110

  Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit

  185

  Council Tax Benefit

  25

  Total

  340

  Notes:

  1. Savings figures are calculated by raising the earnings of current benefit recipients to the level of the National Minimum Wage. No other factors are taken into account.

  2. Estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, imposing the 1999–2000 tax and benefit structure, assuming 1998–99 levels of caseloads, prices, benefit rates and earnings. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioners would receive income support in each of the next five years assuming(a) that the April 1998 level of income support was indexed to prices and (b) that the Government implement their proposed minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [70596]

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

  Thousand

  Estimated number of pensioner units receiving income support assuming:

  (a) Price indexation of income support

  (b) Implementation of MIG

  1999–2000

  1,495

  1,560

  2000–01

  1,608

  1,673

  2001–02

  1,722

  1,787

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner benefit unit means a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple where one member is aged 60 or over.

  2. Figures are not available for years beyond 2001–02. The figures are estimates of the average number of cases in each financial year. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  3. Figures given for part (b) are consistent with those published in the November 1998 pre-budget report.

  4. The figures exclude pensioners in residential care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 1999,Official Report column 222, what assumptions about post-retirement indexation of (i) the basic state pension, (ii) the state second pension and (iii) the minimum income guarantee underlie his estimates of the numbers of pensioners on income support. [70803]
  674
  Mr. Timms
  The estimates provided assume that the basic State Pension and State Second Pension are indexed in line with prices when in payment, and that the Minimum Income Guarantee is indexed in line with the growth in average earnings (assumed to be 1.5 per cent. per year above the growth in prices).

  The actual level of indexing of the Minimum Income Guarantee in future years will depend on the prevailing economic conditions. We have stated that our long-term objective is to increase the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with average earnings, as resources allow, so that even the least well off pensioners can share in rising national prosperity.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the items sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Asset Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [70409]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The National Asset Register published in November 1997 showed the assets held by the Department, its agencies and associated public bodies to be 195 freehold properties, 54 historic leasehold properties, 59,500 personal computers, 24,400 printers and 2,853 vehicles.

  In the period to the end of January 1999 the Department sold a relatively small percentage of its personal computers and printers. 746 vehicles were sold realising £2,223,458.

  The Department's freehold and historic leasehold properties were transferred to the private sector as part of two Private Finance Initiative deals. On 8 January 1998 the Department transferred the six properties in the Newcastle Estate (Newcastle Longbenton, Gosforth Broadway West, Newcastle Ponteland Road, Washington Emerson House, Newcastle Tyneview Park and Washington Durham House) to the Newcastle Estate Partnership. The Department did not receive a cash sum but will be charged rentals at a reduced rate for the period of the contract. On 1 April 1998 the remainder of the Department's estate was transferred as part of the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate (PRIME). The Department received cash consideration of £250 million. The National Audit Office have performed Value For Money studies on both of the contracts. The reports are due to be published later this year.

  The estimated total cash raised from such sales to date is £252,223,458.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in his Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70783]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the right hon. Member to the Written Answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 569.
  675

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional resources will be made available to fund interviews taking place under the Single Gateway system proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. [71189]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Work-Focused Gateway will be piloted in 12 areas, commencing in June 1999. A total of £79.5 million in additional resources has been allocated, from the Invest to Save Budget, to fund these pilot exercises. An important reason for piloting the Single Work-Focused Gateway is to measure the costs in order to inform decisions about national implementation.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if widowers who become eligible for widowed parent's allowance or bereavement allowance will have payments based upon their own, or their spouse's national insurance contribution record; and if he will estimate the annual costs of making benefit payments based on the best of either their own or their spouse's record. [71415]

  Angela Eagle
  In line with the contribution conditions currently applied to Widows' Benefits, entitlement to bereavement benefits for widowers will be calculated on the National Insurance contribution record of the spouse.

  Information on annual costs of calculating entitlement based on the best of either the widowers own or their spouses contribution record is not available. However, if entitlement to bereavement benefits were based on widowers own contribution record, the estimated extra benefit cost would be of the order of £40 million a year in the first three years of the scheme (there would also be additional administrative costs).

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are presented net of income-related benefit offsets, in line with those in the consultation document "A new contract for Welfare: Support in Bereavement".

  2. Income-related benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  3. The underlying contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuaries Department.

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million and provide broad orders of magnitude.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will break down the estimated savings to be made on changes to incapacity benefit into those from(a) the clawback on occupational payments and (b) the introduction of new contributory rules. [71417]

  Mr. Bayley
  The proposed modernisation of Incapacity Benefit for new claimants, with reformed contribution conditions and taking into account 50 per cent. of amounts of occupational and personal pensions over £50 a week, will reduce benefit expenditure. It is estimated that it will be reduced by £70 million in the first year (£45 million due to occupational pensions and £25 million to contribution conditions), £255 million in the third year (£190 million due to occupational pensions and 676
  £60 million to contribution conditions) and £700 million per year after 10 years (£550 million due to occupational pensions and £150 million to contribution conditions).

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Savings from taking account of occupational and personal pensions allow for overlap with savings from reformed contribution conditions.

  3. 10 year figures are rounded to the nearest 50 million which reflects the greater degree of uncertainty in the longer term.

  Single Parents (Income Support)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of single parents claiming income support since 1994, broken down into those claimants who are(a) single, (b) widowed, (c) separated and (d) divorced; and if he will also list the number of children of single parents in each of these categories. [71416]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available as details on the marital status of Income Support claimants is not collected.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71454]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The number of press releases issued by the department and its agencies from 1990 to 1998

  Year

  HQ

  Benefits Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Child Support Agency

  1991

  198

  7

  —

  —

  1992

  219

  21

  2

  —

  1993

  229

  25

  26

  18

  1994

  211

  29

  26

  1

  1995

  180

  29

  20

  2

  1996

  294

  34

  21

  1

  1997

  291

  60

  50

  10

  1998

  311

  42

  28

  4

  Notes:

  1. During the year 1990 the Department was part of the Department of Health and Social Security. Figures are not available for that year.

  2. Prior to 1992 the Department's HQ Press office distributed press releases concerning information on National Insurance Contributions.

  3. Press Releases for the War Pensions Agency and Information Technology Services Agency are included in the figures given for Headquarters.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71469]

  Mr. Timms
  Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communications Service are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the
  677
  Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the Libraries of the House.

  The total cost of press releases issued since May 1997 is as follows.

  Copies of Headquarters Press Notices1 are distributed to the media electronically on our behalf by the Central Office of Information (COI). From May 1997 to December 1998 the total cost of distribution via the COI was £36,693.

  Benefits Agency total cost £6,595.

  Contributions Agency total cost £4,810.

  Child Support Agency total cost £1,866.56.

  1 The costs of press releases issued by the War Pensions Agency and Information Technology Service Agency are included in the total for Headquarters.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate(a) the proportion of the working age population and (b) the number of people of working age, with (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension; and if he will give the same estimates for each year from 1992; [71651]

  (2) if he will estimate (a) the proportion of the working population and (b) the number of people of working age who have (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension and who are only paying in levels of contributions equal to or lower than their National Insurance rebates. [71653]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out here.

  There are about 35 million people of working age in Great Britain. About 10.5 million (30 per cent.) of these people are members of an occupational pension scheme. It is not known how many of these only pay contributions equal to or lower than their National Insurance rebates.

  There were about 5.6 million holders of appropriate personal pensions (APPS) at the end of September 1997. Of these about 3 million pay no further contributions into their APP in addition to the National Insurance rebate. However some holders of these plans may also make payments into other personal pension plans.

  In total there are about 10 million personal pension plans held at present, although some plan holders will have more than one plan. Information on the amounts paid into these plans is not available.

  Information on the numbers of people with occupational and personal pensions are not available for each year since 1992.

  Customer Satisfaction Surveys
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what surveys of customer satisfaction have been carried out by(a) the Benefits Agency, (b) the Employment Service and (c) the Child Support Agency since 1992; and if he will place copies in the Library. [71652]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency carried out national customer satisfaction surveys in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The Child Support Agency carried out national customer satisfaction surveys in 1992, 1993,678
  1994 and 1995. The Employment Service carried out surveys of the satisfaction of Jobcentre users in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997.

  Copies of all surveys have been placed in the Library.

  Since 1995 this Department has conducted further research and surveys on customers' views of service delivery. These concentrate on aspects of service where information is limited—for example, because there have been changes to service or where potential issues, or areas for improvement, have been identified. Research is also conducted to monitor Charter standards.

  Disabled Claimants
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure the provision of(a) suitable training for interviewers to handle sensitive the special requirements of the physically and mentally disabled, (b) measures to ensure full disabled access to all buildings in which claimants will be interviewed and (c) a sufficiently flexible time limit requirement for attending interviews to meet the needs of claimants with particular disabilities before the implementation of his welfare reform proposals relating to the disabled. [71583]

  Mr. Bayley
  We will ensure that advisers are equipped with sufficient skills and knowledge to deal effectively and sensitively with people who are physically or mentally disabled. This will include identifying where more specialist help and support is necessary and making arrangements to enlist that support on behalf of the individuals concerned.

  We are committed to ensuring that disabled people have unrestricted access to services and sites. Accordingly, we will ensure that the Single Work-Focused Gateway will be delivered from sites offering full access. We will also ensure that disabled people are given sufficient time to make arrangements to attend an interview; are given sufficient opportunities to attend; have access to specialist communicators where necessary and have the opportunity for the interview to take place in their home where necessary.

  Lone Parents (Single Gateway)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the interview and single gateway for lone parent families; and if he will make a statement. [71711]

  Angela Eagle
  Officials from this Department have met with representatives of national organisations representing lone parent families. They have expressed general support for the principles which underpin the Single Work-Focused Gateway and officials are currently working to ensure that any concerns expressed by the organisations are recognised in the ongoing development of the gateway.

  Disabled People (Single Gateway)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the interview and single gateway for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [71712]
  679
  Angela Eagle
  Following publication of "A New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work" (Cm 4102), this Department has received a total of 342 responses, 150 of which made representations on the Single Work-Focused Gateway in relation to disabled people. In addition, officials from the Department have met with representatives of national organisations representing disabled people. They have expressed general support for the principles which underpin the Single Work-Focused Gateway and officials are currently working to ensure that any concerns expressed by the organisations are recognised in the ongoing development of the gateway.

  Lone Parents (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of hours that lone parents in receipt of income related benefits work per week in Portsmouth. [69852]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of income related 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. Mike Hancock, dated 15 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average number of hours is that lone parents in receipt of income related benefits work per week in Portsmouth.
  The information requested is only partially available. The main income related benefits for working families are Family Credit (FamC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA). Details are available from a 5 per cent. sample of claims in payment for FamC and a 100 per cent. scan of the DWA claims in payment. The latest information available is for August 1998 and shows that the average number of hours worked are 24 for FamC and 25 for DWA.
  There are other income related benefits which families may receive, notably Income Support, Housing Benefit, and Council Tax Benefit. Unfortunately details of the number of hours worked cannot be obtained.
  I am also able to inform you that the scan of FamC and DWA cases indicated that there were approximately 1,400 lone parents receiving FamC (rounded to the nearest 100) and 29 receiving DWA in the Portsmouth Local Authority District.
  I hope that you find the above information useful.

  Family Credit (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for how many hours on average the main earners in couples receiving family credit work per week in Portsmouth; [69682]

  (2) how many families receive the maximum family credit benefits in Portsmouth. [70275]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Family Credit 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. Mike Hancock, dated 15 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, how many hours the main earners in couples receiving Family Credit work per week, and how many families receive the maximum family credit benefits, in Portsmouth.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Family Credit is a national benefit and is administered centrally by the Family Credit Unit and statistics are produced on a national basis.
  680
  However, a periodic scan of the computer system is conducted which obtains details from a 5% sample of the claims in payment. As at August 1998, this indicated that the main earners, in couples receiving Family Credit, worked on average 31.3 hours per week, and that there were 1,100 families (rounded to the nearest 100) in receipt of the maximum amount of Family Credit, in the Portsmouth Local Authority District.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Tobacco and Alcohol Smuggling
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability claimants have had their benefits withdrawn by the Benefits Agency because they have been found to be smuggling or bootlegging tobacco and alcohol; and how much money was saved in 1997–98. [70014]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Jacqui Lait, dated 15 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many disability benefits claimants have had their benefits withdrawn by the Benefits Agency (BA) because they have been found to be smuggling or bootlegging tobacco and alcohol; and how much money was saved in 1997–98.
  The information is not available in the format requested because it is not possible to identify how many claimants of any particular benefit have had their benefit or benefits stopped or withdrawn specifically because of bootlegging or smuggling activities, and how much money was saved in such cases.
  However I can tell you that we have specific activity going on in the Channel area. David Riggs wrote to you on my behalf on 25 March 1998, following an earlier Parliamentary Question you tabled, and let you know about the BA Ports project. The Ports Project achieved savings of £1.24m in the year 1997/98 and its success led to our decision in April 1998 to create a separate unit to carry on with the work. In the current year to date, this team known as Port Fraud Investigation Team, has achieved savings of £1.49m.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Working Parents
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the extra child care provisions put in place since the launch of the plan for Parents at Work by the Benefits Agency in May 1998. [70171]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Audrey Wise, dated 15 February 1999:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if I will list the extra childcare provisions put in place since the launch of the plan for Parents at Work by the Benefits Agency (BA) in May 1998.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to give you an update on progress with our Nine Point Plan for Parents at Work. It may be helpful if I briefly outline the actions we have taken so far.
  Our main objective has been to set up a comprehensive network of Childcare Champion posts that have now been filled, with the last Champion taking up post in December last year. We know from the major review of childcare provision which we undertook in the BA in 1997 that there is a significant demand from staff for childcare but not enough holiday playschemes in operation.

  681
  The first task of the Childcare Champions is to establish the areas of greatest need for playschemes. Approximately thirty possible schemes have already been identified and we expect ten of these to be up and running by Summer 1999. East new scheme will receive initial funding of up to £3000. We aim to have a further forty schemes established by March 2001. The Childcare Champions will also consider whether any of the holiday playschemes can be extended to provide after-school clubs but we expect the scope for this to be fairly limited.
  Participation on management committees for the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships has been secured by some of the Childcare Champions. This will help the Agency play an active part in local childcare planning alongside Local Education Authorities and Training Enterprise Councils etc. We will also be looking to encourage other employers from the public, private and voluntary sector, to join us in partnership with the aim of improving childcare provision for all working parents in the community.
  As you will be aware, the Nine Point Plan also highlighted areas for improvement of the BA's Family Friendly policies. There has been considerable progress in this area with provision made to allow staff paid leave to sit on local Out of School Development Committees. A "Family Friendly" booklet has been produced and distributed to staff setting out the range of family friendly and childcare policies available.
  To ensure that managers and staff fully understand the real business benefits of effective family friendly policies, a further booklet "The Business Benefits of Family Friendly Policies" with examples of good practice for all line managers has also been produced and distributed. Also an article entitled "Parents at Work" has been published in the Agencies "BA Newsletter" and seminars have been held country wide to launch the initiative positively and gain the understanding and support of managers at all levels.
  The Agency already has family friendly policies, providing 325 nursery and 1,350 holiday playscheme places for staff, which compares favourably with external organisations. Our commitment to full implementation of our Nine Point Plan will go even further towards helping all our staff balance more effectively their work and family lives.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Miss H. McNulty
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what contact was made with Walsall Social Services before Miss H. McNulty, of Walsall, reference JP/4L/JKM was refused a Social Fund payment for a mobility scooter; and if he will make a statement; [70445]

  (2) for what reasons Miss H. McNulty, reference JP/4L/KJM in Walsall was refused a social fund payment for a mobility scooter; [70447]

  (3) if Miss H. McNulty, of Walsall, reference JP/4L/JKM was seen by officials prior to a decision being made that she should not receive a Social Fund payment for a mobility scooter; [70444]

  (4) what circumstances were taken into account when deciding that a Social Fund payment for a mobility scooter should be refused in the case of Miss H. McNulty, of Walsall, reference JP/4L/KJM; [70446]

  (5) if he will ensure that the local Benefits Agency office in Walsall reconsiders the application by Miss McNulty; and if he will make a statement. [70768]
  682
  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Winnick, dated 15 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Benefits Agency (BA) refusal of a Social Fund payment to Miss H McNulty, in particular whether contact was made with Walsall Social Services before a decision was made; for what reasons a payment was refused; if Miss McNulty was seen by officials prior to the decision; what circumstances were taken fully into account; whether the local office intends to send an official to see Miss McNulty; and if the local office in Walsall will reconsider the application.
  Neither the Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer or Social Fund Inspector made any contact with Walsall Social Services prior to making their respective decisions to refuse a Social Fund payment to Miss McNulty for a mobility scooter. It is not the practice of the BA to approach Social Services without the express permission of the customer. The application form which Miss McNulty completed asked if there was anyone she would like contacted in connection with the application, but the offer was declined.
  Miss McNulty was refused a Community Care Grant for a mobility scooter on the grounds of insufficient priority. Although the eligibility and qualification criteria for a Community Care Grant [Social Fund directions 25 and 4 (a) (ii)] were met, the demands on the district grants budget are such that only high priority grant applications can be met. The Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer, and Social Fund Inspector decided that Miss McNulty's need for a mobility scooter was not of high priority in her circumstances.
  The eligibility and qualification criteria for a Budgeting Loan [Social Fund directions 8 and 2] were also met. Again, the demands on the district loans budget are such that only high priority loan applications can be met. The Social Fund Officer, Social Fund Review Officer, and Social Fund Inspector decided that Miss McNulty's need for a mobility scooter was not of high priority in her circumstances, so a Budgeting Loan was refused.
  A Crisis Loan was refused because the Secretary of State has excluded mobility needs from consideration for a Crisis Loan [Social Fund direction 23].
  The mobility scooter was not considered to be a medical item as it does not treat, cure, alleviate, prevent, or diagnose a medical condition. [Medical items are excluded by the Secretary of State from Social Fund payments].
  McNulty was not seen by officials of the Benefits Agency or Social Fund Inspectorate prior to the decision to refuse her a Social Fund payment. However she received copies of all papers relating to her application and replied to these papers with her own comments.
  There is no provision in the Social Fund scheme for the local office to reconsider the application after it has been subject of a decision by a Social Fund Inspector, therefore there is currently no intent to visit Miss McNulty in connection with the application in question.
  I empathise with the difficulties faced by many of our customers, particularly our vulnerable and disabled customers such as Miss McNulty. I am satisfied that my staff have given full consideration of the facts but accept a home visit could have been carried out.
  There are two possible ways forward: Miss McNulty could either make another application for a payment from the Social Fund for a mobility scooter, but an immediate repeat application would be excluded by Direction 7 (if this was made within 26 weeks of her former application); or she could apply for a judicial review of the first decision if she thinks that there was an error in law in the processing of the application.
  I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.
  683

WALES

  Task Forces
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) task forces, (b) review panels and (c) advisory groups within his Department; and if he will state, in respect of each, (i) the remit, (ii) the membership, (iii) details of members' principal employment and (iv) the level of members' remuneration. [70042]

  Mr. Michael
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Enhancement Works
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Welsh Development Agency has for environmental enhancement works for(a) the urban corridors from Queensferry to Connahs Quay, Deeside and (b) Buckley, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [70917]

  Mr. Hain
  This is an operational matter for the Welsh Development Agency and I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend directly. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in his Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70778]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 569.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71281]

  Mr. Michael
  Welsh Office expenditure on programmes targeted at supporting people with learning disabilities, physical and sensory disabilities and mental health problems totalled £46.6 million in 1998–99. Other expenditure related to people with disabilities is incurred in other programmes and by the Department as an employer but this is a normal and integral aspect of business which is not separately identified. For this reason the full proportion of departmental spending on people with disabilities cannot be identified.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are currently registered homeless in Wales; and how many were so registered for the quarter ending June 1997. [71297]
  684
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of individual people estimated to be homeless. Information on homeless households is shown in the following table.

  Homeless households: Wales1

  April-June 1997

  July-September 1998

  Unintentionally homeless and in priority need

  1,137

  1,208

  Intentionally homeless and in priority need

  87

  81

  Homeless but not in priority need

  1,020

  95

  1 Excludes households not eligible for assistance under the Housing Act 1996

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  A4042
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he held regarding the bridging of A4042 during his recent visit to Croesyceiliog. [71164]

  Mr. Hain
  The visit was arranged by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and I have since had discussions with Welsh Office officials.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Aggregate External Finance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is estimated amount of aggregate external finance excluding specific grants for local government in 1999–2000; and how this figure compares with each year since 1992. [71650]

  Mr. Michael
  The figures requested are given in the following table.

  Aggregate external finance in Wales, net of specific grants

  Year

  £ million

  1992–931

  2,156.6

  1993–94

  2,139.5

  1994–95

  2,204.1

  1995–96

  2,238.3

  1996–97

  2,280.1

  1997–98

  2,333.4

  1998–99

  2,443.1

  1999–2000

  2,570.2

  1 Includes funding for Further Education. £124 million was transferred out of the local authority sector in 1993–94 when Further Education funding became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this matter will become one for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated aggregate external finance as a percentage of the total standard spending of local government in 1999–2000; and what was the equivalent percentage in each year since 1992. [71649]
  685
  Mr. Michael
  The requested figures are given in the following table.

  Aggregate external finance as a percentage of total standard spending, net of specific grants

  Year

  Percentage

  1992–93

  89.4

  1993–94

  89.3

  1994–95

  88.5

  1995–96

  87.6

  1996–97

  86.7

  1997–98

  86.8

  1998–99

  86.3

  1999–2000

  86.1

  Following the transfer of functions, this matter will become one for the National Assembly.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of the opening ceremony of the National Assembly. [71154]

  Mr. Michael
  An estimate of the costs involved in the Opening Ceremony of the National Assembly is currently being made, and details will be sent to the hon. Member when they are available.

  National Carers Strategy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local authority(a) the amount of grant that will be payable in each year to support the National Carers Strategy, (b) the estimated number of carers and (c) the product of dividing (a) by (b). [71103]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is not yet available. We are consulting widely with carers, their representatives and local authorities about how the National Strategy for Carers, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 8 February, should be implemented in Wales. Final decisions will be taken by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, the issues will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71472]

  Mr. Michael
  Rules governing the work of the GICS are laid down in the guidance of the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the "Working Guide for Government Information Officers". Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House.

  The cost of press releases issued by my Department, Agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997 is not kept centrally, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  686
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71457]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of press releases issued by my Department in 1990 is not held centrally, but the figures for each of the years from 1991 to 1998 are:

  1991: 622

  1992: 668

  1993: 759

  1994: 644

  1995: 631

  1996: 599

  1997: 650

  1998: 774

  So far this year—147.

  The number of press releases issued by the Department's agencies and non-departmental bodies in those years is not kept centrally, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) by social services authority and (b) in total (i) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99, (ii) the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000, (iii) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, (iv) that difference expressed as a percentage of the 1998–99 figure, (v) the special transitional grant for 1998–99, (vi) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000 and the standard spending assessment for personal social services for 1998–99 combined with the special transitional grant for 1998–99, (vii) the difference between the standard spending assessment for personal social services in 1999–2000 and the standard spending assessment for personal social services for 1998–99 added to the special transitional grant for 1998–99 and expressed as a percentage of the 1998–99 figure and (viii) the indicative level of specific and special grants for 1999–2000. [71319]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In Wales, standard spending assessments (SSAs) are not identified against specific service blocks as in England. Nor is there an equivalent of special transitional grant. Instead, each year since 1993, the Secretary of State has identified for each authority the additional indicative amount attributed to care in the community in its total SSA. The final tranche of £21 million was included in the 1998–99 general revenue settlement. Details are given in the following table.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 February 1999, Official Report, column 610, the local government settlement for 1999–2000 included £5 million to modernise and improve children's services. Again details of how these resources are to be distributed are given in the following table.

  In addition, the Welsh Office is making available, through specific grant, £2.4 million in 1999–2000 to provide training support for personal social services.
  687

  Additional resources included in standard spending assessments for 1998–99 and 1999–200

  £000

  County or county borough council

  Additional resources for care in the community 1998–99

  Additional resources for Utting 1999–2000

  Blaenau Gwent

  533

  130

  Bridgend

  917

  228

  Caerphilly

  1,158

  343

  Cardiff

  2,092

  672

  Carmarthenshire

  1,343

  231

  Ceredigion

  489

  101

  Conwy

  935

  146

  Denbighshire

  731

  137

  Flintshire

  941

  214

  Gwynedd

  920

  156

  Isle of Anglesey

  494

  100

  Merthyr Tydfil

  435

  128

  Monmouthshire

  560

  101

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,093

  256

  Newport

  920

  304

  Pembrokeshire

  800

  174

  Powys

  887

  144

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  1,766

  425

  Swansea

  1,685

  441

  Torfaen

  615

  184

  Vale of Glamorgan (The)

  790

  213

  Wrexham

  898

  207

  Total county and county borough councils

  21,000

  5,033

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Lucas SEI Factory, Ystradgynlais
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will designate through the planning process the site of the Lucas SEI factory of Ystradgynlais in Powys as dedicated for manufacturing purposes. [70999]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for the local planning authority. The adopted Powys Structure Plan already seeks to protect such sites from other forms of development. However, I am talking with Welsh Office officials, the Welsh Development Agency and others to provide alternative job opportunities involving manufacturing.

CABINET OFFICE

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants in each Government Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in each Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost, broken down by department, of compliance with the Directive. [70994]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This information is not held centrally, and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.
  688

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the numbers of New Deal participants currently working in each Government Department. [71187]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 19 November 1998,Official Report, column 755. Updated figures will be available towards the end of April.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 229, if he proposes to set a target end date for completion of the review of the work of the Joint Consultative Committee. [71730]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  No.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Task Force
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response he has made to the Football Task Force report, Investing in the Community. [71993]

  Mr. Banks
  I fully support the practical recommendations made in the Task Force's report on football and the community. I have written today to the bodies identified in the report as having a role to play in implementing the relevant recommendations.

  There are several recommendations which are for Government to consider. One is to assist with the 'Players in the Community Days' which the Task Force has recommended the Professional Footballers' Association consider. The Government will offer whatever assistance is needed with this scheme in the light of their response.

  The other four recommendations relate to Government funding for football, in particular at the grass roots level. My Department is carefully considering the proposals made by the Task Force in this area, especially how they relate to the overall objectives of the Department in relation to sport as a whole. I will be consulting other Government Departments where necessary.

  Football plays a significant part in the community life, and footballers can play a key role in supporting community schemes and setting standards of behaviour. The Government will offer whatever assistance they can to help in the development of football in the community and at the grass roots level.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the advisory
  689
  non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69838]

  NDPB

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agenda's etc.

  Publish register of interests1

  Statutory requirements

  Advisory Committee for the Public Lending Right

  3No

  No

  No

  No

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  5No

  No

  No

  No

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  4No

  No

  No

  No

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Theatres Trust

  No

  No

  2Yes

  No

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Football Taskforce

  No

  No

  6No

  No

  1 All NDPBs either have, or shortly will have a register of interests in place. This is in line with the commitment given in "Quangos: Opening the Doors".

  2 Members interests published in the Theatres Trust annual report.

  3 Reports on the work of the PLR advisory committee appear in the Registrar's annual review.

  4 The Committee publishes an Annual Report, which contains a summary of cases heard.

  5 The ACHWS publishes an annual report which gives an account of the work of the Committee in the previous year.

  6 The Football Taskforce register is available for inspection.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69952]

  NDPB

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agenda's etc.

  Publish register of interests1

  Statutory requirements

  Arts Council of England

  2No

  No

  Yes

  No

  British Library

  No

  No

  No

  No

  British Museum

  No

  No

  3No

  No

  British Film Institute

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  British Tourist Authority

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  4No

  No

  5No

  No

  Crafts Council

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  English Heritage

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  English Sports Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  English Tourist Board

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Football Licensing Authority

  No

  No

  6No

  No

  Geffrye Museum

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Historic Royal Palaces

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Horniman Museum

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Imperial War Museum

  No

  No

  7No

  No

  Library and Information Commission

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Millennium Commission

  No

  No

  8No

  No

  NFTS

  No

  No

  9No

  No

  National Lottery Charity Board

  No

  No

  10Yes

  10Yes

  New Millennium Experience Co. Ltd.

  11No

  No

  Yes

  12Yes

  Museum of London

  No

  13No

  Yes

  No

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Gallery

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  No

  No

  14No

  No

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  No

  No

  15No

  No

  National Maritime Museum

  No

  No

  16No

  No

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Yes

  Yes

  17No

  No

  National Portrait Gallery

  18Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Natural History Museum

  19No

  19No

  20No

  No

  NESTA21

  No

  No

  No

  No

  NOF

  Yes

  No

  10Yes

  10Yes

  Public Lending Right

  Yes

  No

  n/a

  No

  Royal Armouries

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  690
  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department fully supports the proposals on "Quangos: Opening the Doors" and is determined that the public bodies that it sponsors comply with its recommendations for greater openness at the earliest opportunity. The information requested about current practice is contained in the following table:

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department fully supports the proposals on "Quangos: Opening the Doors" and is determined that the public bodies that it sponsors comply with its recommendations for greater openness at the earliest opportunity. The information requested about current practice is contained in the following table:
  691

  NDPB

  Publish minutes of meetings

  Publish agenda's etc.

  Publish register of interests1

  Statutory requirements

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  No

  Yes

  22No

  No

  Tate Gallery

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  UK Sports Council

  No

  No

  23No

  No

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  No

  No

  24No

  No

  Wallace Collection

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  1 All executive NDPBs are expected to have a register of interests. The majority of DCMS executive do have one, or are in the process of establishing one. The majority are available for inspection by the public but are not necessarily published.

  2 A summary report is produced, excluding commercially sensitive information. This is distributed to ACE staff, national and local newspapers, regional arts boards and advisory panels.

  3 The British Museum has a register but this is not published.

  4 Minutes of meetings are not published as a matter of course; however, the Commission does publish its findings on complaints and all its research reports.

  5 The BSC does maintain, for internal reference only, a register of Members' interests.

  6 The Football Taskforce has a register but this is not published.

  7 The IWM register of interests is not published but its availability is publicised.

  8 The Millennium Commission does maintain, for internal reference only, a register of Members' interests.

  9 A register of NFTS Directors is available from Companies House.

  10 A register of interests is required by the National Lottery Act 1998.

  11 NMEC is required by Companies Acts legislation to allow the inspection of the minutes of meetings.

  12 As a public sector company NMEC is required to follow the requirements in the Companies Acts.

  13 The Museum of London does publish some documents arising from meetings.

  14 The Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester does have a register of interests but does not publish it.

  15 The National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside register of interests is not published but is available for inspection on request.

  16 The National Maritime Museum register of interests is not published but its existence and availability is made known in the NMM annual accounts.

  17 The NMSI register of interests is available by application to the Committee Manager.

  18 Minutes of meetings are published on the National Portrait Gallery website.

  19 The agendas, minutes and documents for the Natural History Museum are available to be inspected by appointment in the Museum library.

  20 The Natural History Museum register of interests is available on request.

  21 NESTA is a new body established by the 1998 National Lottery Act. It is still finalising its operating procedures and processes.

  22 The Sir John Soane's Museum register of interests is not published but is available for inspection on request.

  23 The UKSC maintains a register of members' interests but does not publish it.

  24 Interests are recorded in the V&A annual accounts.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate

  NDPD

  Admit the public to all meetings

  Hold public meetings

  Have lay or consumer board members 16

  Operate a form of appeal or complaints procedure

  Statutory requirements

  Arts Council of England

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  British Library

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  British Museum

  No

  No

  1Yes

  Yes

  No

  British Film Institute

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  British Tourist Authority

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  No

  9Yes

  10Yes

  11Yes

  12No

  Crafts Council

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  English Heritage

  No

  No

  5Yes

  Yes

  No

  English Sports Council

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  English Tourist Board

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Football Licensing Authority

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Geffrye Museum

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  Historic Royal Palaces

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Horniman Museum

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Imperial War Museum

  No

  Yes

  2Yes

  Yes

  No

  Library and Information Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Millennium Commission

  No

  19No

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Film & Television School

  13No

  No

  No

  14No

  No

  National Lottery Charity Board

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  New Millennium Experience Co Ltd

  No

  17Yes

  18No

  Yes

  20Yes

  Museum of London

  No

  No

  6Yes

  Yes

  No

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  692
  some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69975]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1999, c. 468–70]: Due to an error, the footnotes in my previous Answer were incomplete. The following table gives the information required:
  693

  NDPD

  Admit the public to all meetings

  Hold public meetings

  Have lay or consumer board members 16

  Operate a form of appeal or complaints procedure

  Statutory requirements

  Museums and Galleries Commission5

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  National Gallery

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  No

  Yes

  No

  15Yes

  No

  National Maritime Museum

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  No

  3No

  No

  Yes

  No

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  No

  Yes

  7Yes

  Yes

  No

  National Portrait Gallery

  No

  No

  4No

  Yes

  No

  Natural History Museum

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  NESTA

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  NOF

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Public Lending Right

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Royal Armouries

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Tate Gallery

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  UK Sports Council

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Wallace Collection

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Notes:

  1 The British Museum say that all their Board Members are visitors and users. Those Trustees that sit on the External Relations and Public Services Committee have particular responsibility for consumer interests including disability issues.

  2The Imperial War Museum say that none of its Board is a museum professional: all are "lay" and may ask questions as consumers.

  3The NMGM have agreed in principle to hold one open meeting a year beginning in 1999

  4The National Portrait Gallery do not allow non-Trustees to attend Board meetings

  5English Heritage advise that one commissioner has been a recipient of a grant and can be described as a "consumer". As not all Commissioner are experts in the fields they represent they can be described as lay members

  6 The Museum of London say that its Board is made up of people from a wide number of backgrounds who include people with lay or consumer representations.

  7 The National Museum of Science and Industry say that the Board is composed of individuals appointed by Government selected from those with interests and expertise which will assist and advise the Museum both with regard to visitors and care of the collections. These unpaid individuals provide a wide range of scientific, visitor, management and educational experience

  8 The English Tourist Board holds three public meetings with Regional Tourist Boards annually which are also open to the industry and public

  9 Members of the public who are complainants on fairness in broadcasting are invited to attend Commission hearings in which their complaint is being considered. However, meetings of Commission members are not usually open to the general public. The Commission does hold public meetings throughout the country in the form of consultation groups.

  10 Members of the BSC are appointed on merit and we aim to ensure that its membership has a wide representation of skills to enable the Commission to fulfil its remit.

  11 As part of its remit, the Commission deals with complaints from the public on fairness and standards in broadcasting. There is no formal appeals system against its decisions.

  12 The BSC was created by the Broadcasting Act 1996, which lays down some general rules about the Commission's membership and function.

  13 The NFTS sees its public as its students and tutors whom are allowed to attend all board meetings if they so wish.

  14 The NFTS complaints procedure is for use by its student and tutor representatives.

  15 The NHMF operate a Review and Complaints Committee for applicants to the Heritage Lottery Fund who are unhappy with the way their application has been handled.

  16 All DCMS appointments are made in accordance with guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. A field of candidates is identified in every case against an agreed role specification, and an element of independent scrutiny is always included in the process.

  17 As part of the NMEC Section 106 Planning Agreement with the London Borough of Greenwich, the NMEC are obliged to hold a public meeting for local residents. Two meetings have so far taken place.

  18 NMEC has formed a number of advisory committees which are comprised of lay/consumer people.

  19 Staff from the Millennium Commission hold meetings with the public.

  20 As a public sector company NMEC is required to follow the requirements in the Companies Acts.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to all the Government's public consultations. [69772]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  When the DCMS issues a public consultation paper it will, in line with central guidance issued by the Cabinet Office, either publish a summary of the views collected or make the results available on request (in each case subject to respecting confidentiality requested by those responding).
  694

  Concessionary Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the benefits of providing television licences free of charge for(a) pensioners and (b) disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [70989]

  Janet Anderson
  The current review of the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 will include a consideration of the structure of the existing concessionary television licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available. The independent review panel will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the
  695
  end of July this year. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations. It would not be right for the Government to preempt the outcome of the review.

  Theme Parks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants are available for the creation of rides at theme parks in the North West from the English Tourist Board. [71490]

  Janet Anderson
  There are no grants available from the English Tourist Board (ETB) for this purpose.

  The North West, like all parts of the country, benefits from the work of the British Tourist Authority and of the ETB. A significant part of the grant to the ETB is passed on to the ten regional tourist boards for local programmes and marketing.

  New support structures announced on 14 December, as part of the results of the DCMS Departmental Spending Review, will ensure that in future more effective use is made of public spending on tourism in England, with a greater proportion going to the regions.

  World Cup Bids (2006)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to establish that the bidding process for the 2006 World Cup will be free from bribery. [68459]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The Government expect bids to bring international events to this country to be pursued with openness and integrity. I take a close interest in ensuring this is so, and following controversy about Olympic bids have received assurances from the Football Association that the bid for the 2006 World Cup naturally will comply fully with the published guidelines, and will certainly be free from recourse to bribery. I accept those assurances and will continue vigorously to assist with the FA campaign for the 2006 bid, whose strength and viability rest on its quality against bidding criteria.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of web sites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each web site (i) the topics covered,(ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each web site for each of the next three years. [70976]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: My Department's main web site (www.culture.gov.uk) costs £2,000 per annum to run and did not incur any set up costs. The web site has on average 130,000 'hits' per month and contains information about the work of the Department, contact details for Ministers and public inquires, and a range of publications, consultation papers, and links to sponsored bodies.
  696
  The National Lottery Awards web site cost £42,000 to set up and has, on average 5,000 'hits' per month.

  The Royal Parks Agency have a web site hosted by the CCTA and from January this year costs £500 per annum to run. The web site contains information on each of the Royal Parks. There is no information on the number of `hits' for this site.

  We do not hold information on our non-departmental public bodies web sites and this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Television Subtitles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 31, what specific policies his Department intends to bring forward to improve the level of subtitling on cable and satellite television following the meetings his officials have held with broadcasters and subtitle providers. [69645]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: My officials have had a useful series of meetings with the cable and satellite broadcasters, those representing viewers with sensory disabilities and subtitling providers. I met the RNID on 20 January. We are now considering in the light of the information from those meetings how we can encourage the cable and satellite broadcasters to improve on a voluntary basis the current provision of subtitling on their services.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates his Department has made of how long it will be before digital set top boxes are able to support subtitling. [69644]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I understand from the Independent Television Commission that all services within the six digital terrestrial multiplexes are providing subtitles with the exception of a small number of ITV companies within the Channel ¾ multiplex who expect to commence very shortly.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department intends to make recommendations to the ITC about how its annual targets for subtitling for deaf and hard of hearing people should be calculated, with particular reference to digital television. [69643]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The Broadcasting Act 1996 requires the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to draw up a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf and hard of hearing. The code must include specified minimum targets which are laid down in the 1996 Act, which also gives the Commission the power to set interim targets. Under the provisions of the Act, it is solely a matter for the ITC to draw up the code. The Act places a statutory duty on the Commission to consult those bodies or persons who represent the interests of people with sensory disabilities, before drawing up their code.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates his Department has made of the proportion of subtitled programmes for deaf and
  697
  hard of hearing viewers (a) at present and (b) in five years time for (i) digital terrestrial, (ii) satellite, digital and analogue and (iii) cable television. [69642]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: For digital terrestrial services, the Broadcasting Act 1996 requires that by the tenth anniversary of the introduction of any digital terrestrial television programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast in any service should be subtitled. The Act gives the Independent Television Commission the power to set interim targets and the Commission has set an interim requirement of 5 per cent. for the first year and 25 per cent. for the fifth year and no programmes are to be excluded. Existing broadcasters obligations on subtitling under the Broadcasting Act 1990 will of course apply to their simulcast digital services. The Commission will monitor broadcasters' progress towards meeting those requirements.

  There are no similar statutory requirements on cable and satellite broadcasters to provide subtitling on their analogue or digital services. My officials have asked cable and satellite broadcasters their plans for provision of subtitling on their digital services and those who responded have indicated a willingness to transmit the subtitling commissioned for digital terrestrial television on other delivery platforms.

  After-school Sports Clubs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the amount of money which the New Opportunities Fund will spend on after-school sports clubs. [70650]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his reply to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 16 November 1998, Official Report, column 350, no specific amount has been earmarked for providing children with sporting opportunities at after-school clubs, but activities offered may include sporting and outdoor learning activities, and structured, learning-oriented play. The amount allocated for these activities will be determined by the New Opportunities Fund in response to the applications received.

  The New Opportunities Fund will commit £400 million to out of school hours activities during the current licence period to September 2001. Of this, £180 million will be committed to education activities, £200 million to child care, and £20 million to projects combining child care and education.

  Out of school hours education projects should involve at least half of all secondary schools, at least a quarter of all primary schools, and at least half of all special schools by 2001. Out of school child care projects should provide places for 865,000 children by 2003.

  The Prime Minister also announced an extra £400 million for the New Opportunities Fund between now and 2001. We have consulted on how this money
  698
  should be spent and have proposed that part of the additional amount should be committed to an expansion of the existing out of school hours initiative, to enhance the contribution made by summer schools not only to literacy, numeracy and opportunities for arts, but also to sport.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government will take to encourage physical exercise as part of its new after-school care programme. [70295]

  Mr. Banks
  Through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) we have committed £400 million of National Lottery money to out of school hours activities during the current licence period to September 2001. Of this, £180 million has been committed to education activities, £200 million to child care, and £20 million to projects combining child care and education. Out of school hours education projects should involve at least half of all secondary schools, at least a quarter of all primary schools, and at least half of all special schools by 2001. Out of school child care projects should provide places for 865,000 children by 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also announced an extra £400 million for the New Opportunities Fund between now and 2001. We have consulted on how this money should be spent and have proposed that part of the additional amount should be committed to an expansion of the existing out of school hours initiative, to enhance the contribution made by summer schools not only to literacy, numeracy and opportunities for arts, but also to sport.

  The Policy Directions issued to NOF ensure that it takes into account relevant national and local strategies in relation to each initiative. For out of school hours learning this includes Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study support (In England) and any similar guidance produced elsewhere. Study support is learning activity outside normal lessons and embraces many activities, including sports, games and adventurous outdoor activities.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 required NOF to draw up a strategic plan containing its assessment of needs and its priorities in dealing with them, on which it must consult the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This ensures that there is a proper strategy for distributing Lottery proceeds. No specific targets have been allocated to NOF for providing physical exercise opportunities at after-school clubs, but in reviewing NOF's strategic plan we shall ensure that the projects it supports promote young people's well-being through a range of activities, including sport and creative activities.

  Staff Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the mileage rates currently applicable to staff, indicating what changes have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [70955]
  699
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The mileage rates currently applicable to staff within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and The Royal Parks Agency are:

  Pence per mile

  Per mile

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  Car—Standard rate

  Up to 4,000 miles

  —

  34

  43

  47

  Over 4,000 miles

  —

  19

  23

  31

  Public transport rate

  23

  —

  —

  —

  Passenger supplement

  First passenger

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Equipment supplement

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Pence per mile

  Per mile

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  Motor cycles—up to 4,000 miles

  Third party insurance

  —

  14.6

  22.1

  Comprehensive insurance

  —

  16.2

  25.3

  Over 4,000 miles

  —

  6.1

  9.0

  Bicycles

  Mileage allowance

  6

  —

  —

  DCMS and RPA offer season ticket loans for public transport and loans to assist in the purchase of bicycles. My Department is aiming to meet the Government targets on green transport by March 1999. It will seek to identify practical measures aimed at promoting greener travel including reviewing car mileage rates.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to relocate staff in(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which he is responsible to the regions of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of unemployment; and what plans he has further to decentralise the location of his Department and its agencies. [70469]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I have not relocated staff and have no plans to do so. However, I will be establishing a new post for my Department in each of the Government Offices in the English regions in the next financial year. I am also encouraging the decentralisation of work to all the English regions from a number of the national bodies sponsored by my Department and located in England.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total number of staff(a) in his Department and (b) in each of the agencies for which he is responsible and their location in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English regions. [70483]
  700
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to "Civil Service Statistics 1998" which is placed in the Libraries of the House. This includes regional information. Staff at the Royal Parks Agency are all based in the London area.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to change the name of the English Tourist Board. [71729]

  Janet Anderson
  On 14 December 1998 we announced in "A New Cultural Framework" that we would establish a new streamlined, more strategic body to support tourism in England. An implementation Team is looking at all aspects of the body, including its role, detailed remit and name.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received about genetically modified crops from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes; and if he will make a statement. [68629]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: All advice received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is published in their Annual Reports. Copies of these have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held with English Nature about genetically modified crops. [68066]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  On 16 November my hon. Friend the Minister of State met the Chairman of English Nature to discuss genetically modified crops. In addition my officials and those of English Nature have attended recent meetings at which this subject has been discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the circumstances in which food and food ingredients containing, or produced using, genetically modified organisms or micro-organisms must be labelled. [69875]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Provision for labelling novel foods is described in article 8 of Regulation 258/97. This requires that the consumer is informed of any characteristic or property of the food, such as composition, nutritional value or intended food use, which renders a novel food or food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient. In addition, the food must be labelled if it could have health implications for certain population sectors, contains ingredients that raise ethical concerns or contains a genetically modified organism.

  Finally, Regulation 1139/98 on labelling genetically modified (GM) soya and maize sets a precedent for the labelling of all food ingredients containing or produced from genetically modified organisms where they contain GM material (protein or DNA).
  701

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the information held by his Department on consumers' attitudes towards genetically modified food. [68089]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My Department encourages all its research contributors to publish details of their work in peer reviewed scientific journals.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information held by his Department about consumers' attitudes towards genetically modified food was released to(a) Monsanto, (b) Novartis and (c), other companies wishing to introduce genetic modification into Britain. [68090]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Research sponsored by my Department on consumer attitudes towards biotechnology is available for public viewing in the library of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Its availability, as with other research projects, is announced in the Food Safety Information Bulletin.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has held with retailers about consumers' attitudes towards genetically modified food; [68088]

  (2) what discussions he has held with retailers about consumers' attitudes towards genetically modified food. [68062]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Ministerial colleagues and I have held meetings with retailers on a variety of matters including genetically modified food. In relation to genetically modified food we have stressed the importance we attach to safety and labelling.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on(a) genetically modified organisms and (b) the biotechnology industry from the US Administration. [66682]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I met US Trade Representative, Ambassador Barshefsky, on 23 October 1998. The Ambassador expressed some concerns about the way genetically modified organisms were being dealt with in the
  EU. I reassured her that the UK Government was committed to a science-based approach which protected human health and the environment.

  Consultation Exercise
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the dates and venues of the meetings which he will be holding or attending which form part of his consultation exercise Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture. [66904]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Following the conference on Agenda 2000 CAP reform on 11 January, further consultation meetings are being arranged by MAFF Regional Service Centres. Details of these are being suitably publicised at local level.
  702
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date or dates the decision was taken to launch the consultation exercise, Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture. [66908]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 624–26, announcing a package of aid measures for livestock farmers. In the course of that statement I mentioned that the Government would be undertaking—in consultation with all interested parties—a thorough review of the rural economy and consulting widely on a range of issues over the coming months.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many responses his Department has received as part of the consultation exercise Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture; and if he will publish them. [66905]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Details of numbers of forms received in response to the consultation exercise will be published in due course, along with an analysis of their content. Unless the authors object, copies of letters (though not individual forms) will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the consultation exercise Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture cost(a) to produce and (b) in postage. [66909]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The costs for the consultation exercise "Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture" were as follows:

  (a) to produce—£41,000

  (b) postage—£37,000.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms have been devised(a) to collate and (b) to utilise the responses to the consultation exercise Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture ahead of the deadline for the conclusion of Agenda 2000 negotiations. [66907]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The exercise of handling the responses to the consultation exercise has begun and appropriate mechanisms for data input are being put in place. Regional meetings are being arranged in the next few weeks to highlight the issues at stake and further encourage informed comment. Responses received will be utilised to help ensure that informed decisions are made about future agricultural policy so as to take full account of UK farming interests, along with those of consumers and the environment.

  Foodstuffs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those cases in which a Member State has sought to invoke Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 (restricting or suspending trade in and use of food or food ingredients) in addition to an examination by the European Commission within the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs under that Article. [69870]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Article 12 has yet to be invoked by any member state.
  703

  Novel Foods
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the requests submitted to him and to other Member States in connection with the placing on the market of genetically modified novel foods or novel food ingredients, pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation

  Applications under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council

  Applicant

  Description of food or ingredient

  Initial assessment carried out by

  Application date

  Initial assessment

  1. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Laboratory of Plant Physiology B-3001 Heverlee

  Stevia rebaudiana (plant and dried leaves)

  Hoge Gezonheidsraad RAC—Esplanadegebouw 7e verdieping Pachecolaan 19 bus 5 B-1010 Brussels

  7 November 1997

  6 February 1998; answers to additional questions on 23 January 1998 24 April 1998; Initial assessment report 13 July 1998 Translation into English Forwarded to Member States on 18 August 1998 Additional assessment SCF plenary 9 December 1998

  2. Belovo scrl Zone industrielle, 1 B-6600 Bastogne

  Phospholipids from egg yolk

  Hoge Gezonheidsraad RAC—Esplanadegebouw 7e verdieping Pachecolaan 19 bus 5 B-1010 Brussels

  9 February 1998

  9 June 1998 Initial assessment report forwarded to Member States on 29 September 1998 Further information by Belgium on 29 October 1998 at the CPDA Deadline for comments/reasons objections 28 December

  3. Zeneca Jealott's Hill Research Station Jealott's Hill, Bracknell, UK, Berkshire RG42 6ET

  Genetically Modified Processing Tomatoes

  UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  3 March 1998

  2 June 1998 Initial assessment report arrived 8 June 1998. Transmission to Member States: June 1998. Comments and reasoned objections made by Member States forwarded to Member States on 22 October 1998. Additional assessment SCF plenary 9 December 1998.

  4. Bejo-Zaden PO Box 50, NL-1749 Warmenhuizen

  Transgenic Radicchio rosso with male sterility

  The Provisional Committee for the safety evaluation of novel foods (VcVnv)

  —

  Initial assessment forwarded to Member States on 27 October 1998

  5. Bejo-Zaden PO Box 50, NL-1749, Warmenhuizen

  Transgenic green hearted Chicory with male sterility

  The Provisional Committee for the safety evaluation of novel foods (VcVnv)

  8 April 1998

  7 July 1998 Initial assessment forwarded to Member States on 27 October 1998

  6. Unilever Research & Engineering Division, Unilever UK, Central Resources Ltd., Unilever House, Blackfriars, UK. London EC4P 4BQ

  Yellow fat spreads with added phytosterol-esters

  The Provisional Committee for the safety evaluation of novel foods (VcVnv)

  28 May 1998

  15 September 1998 Initial assessment forwarded to Member States on 8 January 1999

  7. E. I. DuPont Nemours & Co. Agricultural Enterprise Optimum Quality Grains L. L. C.

  High Oleic Soybean Sublines derived from transformation event 260–05

  The Provisional Committee for the safety evaluation of novel foods (VcVnv)

  25 July 1998

  15 November 1998

  Registration and Regulatory Affairs Europe, Ebertstr. 4, D-07743 Jena

  8. Biomin Pharma GmbH Provinostr. 15, D-86153 Augsburg

  Vit-Enzym

  Bundesinstitut fur gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und Veterin&#228;rmedizin

  23 June 1998

  23 September 1998 suspended

  9. Monsanto Services International S. A. Ave. de Tervuren 270–272, B-1150 Bruxelles

  Roundup Ready Maize line GA21

  The Provisional Committee for the safety evaluation of novel foods (VcVnv)

  24 July 1998

  5 November 1998

  704
  (EC) No. 258/97, by (a) company, (b) product, (c) modified trait, (d) the Member State to which the submission was made and (e) its date. [69877]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Details of applications under the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) are as follows:
  705

  Applications under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council

  Applicant

  Description of food or ingredient

  Initial assessment carried out by

  Application date

  Initial assessment

  10. Groupe Danone 7, rue de Téhéran, F-75381 Paris, cedex 08

  Use as human food of fruit preparations pasteurised using a high pressure treatment process

  1) Conseil supérieur d'hygiène publique de France 2) Commission de technologie alimentaire

  3 December 1998

  3 March 1999

  11. M Yvan Jobert La Meillade n065, F-34150, Montpeyroux

  Noix de nangailles

  Conseil supérieur d'hygiène publique de France

  9 December 1998

  9 March 1999

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names, interests and positions of the members of the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs which has functions under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. [69868]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Standing Committee on Foodstuffs is composed of officials from member states. Its composition varies from meeting to meeting.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the initial assessments in connection with the placing on the market of genetically modified novel foods or novel food ingredients, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, required an additional assessment, pursuant to Article 6.3. [69873]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The application under the Novel Foods Regulation for GM tomato products, for which the UK's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes provided the initial assessment in June 1998, required an additional assessment. In addition, the application for Stevia rebaudiana, for which the Belgium competent authority (Hoge Gezonheidsraad RAC) provided the initial assessment, required a further assessment, but was ultimately rejected by all member states. All other applications are still under consideration.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rules have been adopted for the protection of the information referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97; and if he will place a copy of those rules in the Library. [69885]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The European Commission have yet to act on this matter. The Government will continue to pursue this with the European Commission.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the measures adopted by the European Commission under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients; and if he will place a copy of those measures in the Library. [69869]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The European Commission has yet to adopt measures under Article 13.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the additional assessments in connection with the placing on the market of genetically modified novel foods or novel food ingredients, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, the 706
  authorisation decision, by (i) company, (ii) product, (iii) modified trait, (iv) the relevant member state, (v) date and (vi) the scope of the authorisation. [69872]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: An additional assessment will be required for Zeneca GM tomato products which have been modified to delay ripening. The original assessment was carried out by the UK.

  BSE
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he expects the BSE Inquiry to be completed by 30 June. [72143]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Committee of Inquiry has indicated that it needs an extension of time beyond 30 June 1999 in order to enable it to complete its work. Discussions are under way on the additional period that will be required to allow the Inquiry to do this. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nurses (Work Permits)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications from hospital trusts for work permits for nurses have been(a) refused and (b) reduced in duration by his Department in each of the last five years. [68581]

  Ms Hodge
  The specific information requested is not available as work permit records do not identify the type of employer. The numbers of work permit applications for nurses which were refused in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1994

  171

  1995

  151

  1996

  182

  1997

  93

  1998

  144

  These figures show each application refused, not each person. They therefore include a number of nurses for whom several applications were made, including applications for renewals and transfers to another employer.
  707
  Work permit records show the period approved, not the period requested. It is therefore not possible to give the numbers of permit applications which were approved for a shorter period than requested. The period requested would only be reduced where the business reasons given in the application did not justify the longer period.

  Astra Pension Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to compensate future pensioners of the Astra pension scheme for their loss of benefits. [70757]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department continues to press the Astra liquidators and the pension fund trustees to ensure that future pensioners suffer no loss of benefits. Current pensioners are already receiving their full entitlements.

  Childline
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met the Chief Executive or Chairman of Childline to discuss funding. [70708]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I last met the Chief Executive in February 1998 to launch the Childline in Partnership with Schools (CHIPS) project but have not had a meeting specifically to discuss funding.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department spent on promotional literature between(a) 1 May 1997 and 1 January 1999 and (b) 1 May 1995 and 1 January 1997. [70443]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Within the Department's Advertising and Publicity Budget the total spend on publications was:

  (a) £1.96 million between 1 May 1997 and 1 January 1999

  (b) £3.02 million between 1 May 1995 and 1 January 1997.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of web sites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each web site (i) the topics covered, the current average number of hits per month and the estimated expenditure on each web site for each of the next three years. [70974]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The costs of setting up and operating the Department's website since it began in 1995 have not been held centrally and figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The website provides information and advice to parents, teachers, schools, employers and jobseekers about the Department's policies and responsibilities. It receives approximately 950,000 hits per month.

  The cost of developing and running the website for the next three years is estimated to be in the region of £100,000 per year plus staff costs, which are not possible to separate out for work associated with the website.
  708
  The Employment Service has a separate website which provides more detailed information for employers and jobseekers and about ES services. It receives approximately 7,500 hits per month. In 1998–99 it cost approximately £15,000 to run the website. This will rise to £23,600 next year to enable important enhancements and thereafter costs will fall to about £10,000 per year.

  The New Deal website is again separate from the Department's and gives information for employers and potential participants of the New Deal. The site has an average of 12,000 hits per month. The cost to date of the New Deal website is £167,000. Decisions on the future costs and development of the website have not yet been made.

  The Teacher Training Agency had two websites until the end of last year. The first aimed at those involved in Teaching and the second aimed at potential teachers. The average number of hits per month for the two sites is 223,340. The cost to date of setting up and operating the websites is £205,000. The cost for ongoing development and maintenance is estimated at £32,000.00.

  Skin Cancers
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures have been taken to offer school children and staff guidance on, and protection from, the dangers of excessive exposure to sunlight and its linkage with skin cancers. [70365]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department recommends that schools include sun awareness as part of their health and safety policy, and that information is provided to pupils and parents.

  The Department has publicised the Health Education Authority's Sun Awareness Campaign in "Spectrum," a publication that is sent to all schools. This includes "Sun Known-How" safety guidelines for schools, which include advice on putting policies in place, practical information and ideas for activities involving pupils.

  Didbrook School
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the increased gross cost of upgrading Didbrook School following the proposed closure of Toddington School; if Gloucestershire County Council has indicated that it is to reconsider its decision to amalgamate the two schools on the basis of cost; and if he will make a statement. [70893]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for Gloucestershire County Council to estimate the gross cost of these proposals and to submit the relevant financial information to the Department as part of the statement of case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no indication from Gloucestershire County Council that it intends to reconsider its decision to amalgamate the schools. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 229,.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the London banisters' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since

  709
  1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70030]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and Jonathan Crow as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Chancery) to advise and represent the Government in their important civil cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains at present two London panels of junior Counsel whom Departments are expected to use for the rest of the Government's civil litigation. The panels currently comprise 103 barristers from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior banisters. The Attorney-General's individual nomination is required before a barrister who is not on one of the approved panels can be instructed to appear for the Government in litigation.

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Treasury Solicitor and their departmental legal advisers, for example, where the relevant expertise lies in the private sector. The relationship is subject to the usual confidentiality which operates between lawyer and client.

  "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers"
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of the New Deal "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers" have been produced; and at what cost. [71366]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  30,000 copies of the New Deal "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers" were printed, at a total cost of £41,856.

  Carers (Students)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what support is available for carers who wish to enter further or higher education; and if he will make a statement; [70794]

  (2) what is the maximum educational award available to (a) a carer in receipt of invalid care allowance, (b) a disabled student and (c) students released from employment; [70795]

  (3) how the fact that invalid care allowance is a taxable benefit affects the assessment of a carer's entitlement to an educational award and its value; [70796]

  (4) if carers in receipt of invalid care allowance have to pay tuition fees; [70797]

  (5) if carers in receipt of invalid care allowance are entitled to receive a maintenance grant when entering higher education. [70799]

  Mr. Mudie
  Someone with caring responsibilities who is in full-time higher education is, subject to personal eligibility, entitled to support towards tuition fees and living costs on the same basis as other students. For students entering before 1998–99, 50 per cent. of that support was available as grant and 50 per cent. as student loan, and students were not required to contribute to their 710
  tuition fees. From 1998–99 most new entrants are liable for a contribution to their tuition costs, according to their ability to pay. From 1999–2000, the support available to new entrants will be in the form of 100 per cent. loans.

  Currently, the first £3,030 of any Invalid Care Allowance is disregarded in assessing the support available. If the person being cared for is financially dependent on the student, the student may also be eligible for a Dependants Allowance of up to £2,025. Additional support may be available through the Access Funds and the Hardship Loans.

  The maximum maintenance support available to full-time students in higher education will depend upon the student's personal circumstances. For most students living away from the parental home, the maximum support available through grant and loan is currently £3,545. Disabled students are eligible for additional grants as follows:

  (a) in respect of a non-medical personal helper, up to £10,000 annually

  (b) in respect of major items of specialist equipment as the authority consider appropriate, up to £3,955 for the duration of the course

  (c) in respect of any other expenditure, up to £1,315 annually.

  Someone who is a carer wishing to enter further education will be eligible for the range of support available to all students in that sector. This support has been transformed from September 1999 so that it is more evenly distributed across the country and better targeted on those most in need. Provision will be mostly through an expanded access fund administered by colleges, which will provide assistance for such expenditure items as travel, fees, books and equipment. There will be additional support available for child care and for those need to study away from home. Colleges when considering individual applications for access funds will take account of other sources of support, including benefits and allowances. It is up to each college to determine the level of payment appropriate to the individual circumstances of the student concerned. Most students over age 18 will be liable to pay tuition fees, but students no in employment are generally exempt and there is further discretion to assist other groups.

  Filipina Nurses
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation the Overseas Labour Service had with the Department of Health over obtaining work permits for Filipina nurses to come to work in the United Kingdom and what efforts he took to satisfy himself that they could not recruit suitable persons within either the United Kingdom or the EEA; what evidence was provided by the Department of Health that the jobs could not be done equally well by someone resident in the EEA; how many work permits have been issued and under which category; and if he will publish the current register of occupations which he considers to be in short supply nationally and likely to be so within the EEA. [70372]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department's Overseas Labour Service and the Department of Health discuss skill
  711
  shortages and agree work permit policy on nursing on a regular basis. There has been no specific consultation about work permits for Philippine nurses. The views of the Department of Health are not sought on each work permit application for a nurse. The work permit arrangements require the employer who applies for a work permit to show that they have been unable to employ a suitably qualified applicant from the resident labour market. This requirement is set aside for those occupations where there is a recognised acute shortage.

  Recognised shortage occupations for work permits are currently: Actuaries, Chartered Clinical Psychologists, Occupational Therapists, Pharmacists, Veterinary Surgeons and nursing posts in the following specialisms—Intensive Care, Theatre, Paediatric Intensive Care, Mental Health, Neo-natal and Learning Disabilities.

  Applications1 to initial teacher training courses, by level, gender, phase and subject, in England and Wales, academic year of entry 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Academic year of entry

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Postgraduate2

  Undergraduate3

  Postgraduate2

  Undergraduate3

  Postgraduate2

  Undergraduate3

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Primary

  2,383

  10,200

  14,221

  78,072

  2,491

  10,726

  11,597

  66,520

  2,303

  10,431

  9,203

  56,212

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  1,140

  733

  350

  400

  921

  658

  314

  275

  737

  551

  227

  162

  English

  937

  2,260

  247

  518

  863

  2,241

  148

  288

  868

  2,273

  168

  495

  Science

  1,877

  1,821

  349

  291

  1,661

  1,604

  278

  239

  1,331

  1,547

  213

  192

  Languages

  540

  2,140

  33

  151

  539

  2,022

  25

  84

  520

  1,922

  19

  67

  Technology

  840

  709

  982

  695

  870

  735

  908

  584

  811

  784

  653

  540

  History

  1,114

  903

  23

  52

  1,044

  857

  0

  0

  949

  844

  0

  0

  Geography

  662

  635

  21

  20

  572

  616

  13

  16

  532

  532

  12

  25

  Physical Education

  711

  434

  5,037

  4,095

  828

  544

  4,374

  3,469

  819

  587

  3,858

  3,442

  Art

  227

  712

  20

  50

  395

  1,108

  16

  47

  381

  1,025

  21

  55

  Music

  250

  344

  117

  234

  251

  298

  40

  38

  221

  323

  52

  23

  Religious education

  375

  470

  41

  101

  347

  479

  17

  60

  322

  515

  12

  45

  Other

  384

  436

  1,339

  1,094

  297

  324

  1,226

  1,003

  199

  311

  695

  739

  Total secondary

  9,057

  11,597

  8,559

  7,701

  8,588

  11,486

  7,359

  6,103

  7,690

  11,214

  5,930

  5,785

  Overall total

  11,440

  21,797

  22,780

  85,773

  11,079

  22,212

  18,956

  72,623

  9,993

  21,645

  15,133

  61,997

  1 UCAS count up to six applications per applicant, whilst GTTR count one application per applicant

  2 Postgraduate figures exclude applications made directly to the ITT provider

  3 Undergraduate figures exclude applications made at the clearing stage

  Source:

  Undergraduate applications—Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Postgraduate applications—Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

  Local Government Finance (Westminster and Kensington)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) grants and (b) other financial support given by his Department to (i) Westminster City Council and (ii) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, other than through

  Grants to Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea

  £000

  1997–98 (actual)

  1998–99 (estimated)

  1999–2000 (planned)

  Grant

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  VA Capital Grant1

  729

  92

  595

  152

  375

  139

  New Deal for Schools Capital

  313

  244

  988

  527

  2—

  2—

  Nursery Education (4 year olds) 3

  1,209

  806

  486

  356

  2—

  2—

  Standards Fund4

  796

  610

  1,698

  978

  4,290

  2,551

  Travellers Grant5

  —

  34

  —

  35

  —

  48

  712
  The number of work permits issued for nurses from the Philippines in 1998 was 202. This figure includes initial permits, extensions and transfers to another employer.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 the total number of applications to (i) primary and (ii) secondary teacher training courses, including PGCE by (1) gender, (2) age and (3) subject. [69901]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the total number of applications to primary and secondary initial teacher training courses by phase, gender and subject for entry years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. Age of applicant is not available.

  the RSG settlements, in (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99 and (3) planned for 1999–2000; and for what purposes the funds were allocated. [70159]

  Mr. Mudie
  Details of the grants and other financial support paid by my Department to Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in 1997–98 and 1998–99, and planned for 1999–2000, are set out in the following tables.
  713

  Grants to Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea

  £000

  1997–98 (actual)

  1998–99 (estimated)

  1999–2000 (planned)

  Grant

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  TVEI6

  43

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Supported Employment

  33

  23

  33

  23

  2—

  2—

  Child care

  n/a

  n/a

  55

  51

  7172

  7145

  1 Grant paid to the governors of VA schools maintained by the authority.

  2 To be decided.

  3 Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not comparable due principally to changes in the handling of funding for private and voluntary providers.

  4 Total programme expenditure; includes LEA contributions. 1998–99 figure also includes two capital grants for Energy Efficiency Initiative and Removal of Outside Toilets. Expenditure for these grants amounted to £45k for Westminster and £27k for Kensington and Chelsea.

  5 Figures relate to total expenditure; grant is paid at the rate of 65 per cent. 1999–2000 figure includes £12.7k for development work.

  6 Funding for TVEI ended in 1997–98.

  7 Amounts allocated but not yet agreed.

  Other financial support to Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea

  £000

  Credit approvals

  Other Annual capital guideline

  Formula minor works allocation1

  Schools access initiative

  PFI credits

  1997–98 (actual)

  Westminster

  608

  46

  51

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  84

  18

  7

  —

  1998–99 (estimated)

  Westminster

  70

  —

  35

  up to 25,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  123

  —

  35

  —

  1999–2000 (planned)

  Westminster

  183

  —

  2—

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  101

  —

  2—

  —

  1 Issued as Supplementary Credit Approvals in 1997–98 only.

  2 To be confirmed.

  Linux Computer Operating System
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the Linux computer operating system and its potential for reducing the costs of school computer systems. [70178]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The Government are aware of this system which, with other relevant products available for educational use, is being kept under review by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Their recent publication, "Connecting Schools, Networking People", offered guidance to schools on good practice in the purchasing and deployment of advanced technologies. It will be updated in future to ensure that it remains relevant to schools.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what opportunities are available for objectors to plans to sell school playing fields to make known to him their opposition to a sale prior to a decision being taken. [70360]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The Department has recently consulted widely on the criteria against which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider applications for his consent to sell, or change the use, of school playing fields.
  714
  Although it is for applicants to decide the details of any local consultation, they should bear in mind that it was local concerns that prompted legislation to protect school playing fields. Draft procedures published on 1 October 1998 set out my right hon. Friend's expectation that applicants should consult locally and inform him of the responses they receive. The Department expects that local consultation should include the direct views of parents of pupils attending the school, as well as any other school which uses the field for school purposes. A minimum consultation period of 8 term-time weeks is recommended to allow sufficient opportunity for objections to be made known.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the procedures that schools have to pursue before selling school playing fields under the regulations governing such sales. [70361]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: I assume in the light of the hon. Member's previous questions that this question concerns the sale of playing fields by school governing bodies that own their playing fields, as is generally the case for grant-maintained schools, rather than the sale of school playing fields by local authorities.

  The governing body of a grant-maintained school must obtain the written consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before selling any land, including

  715
  buildings and playing fields. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act, which came into force on 1 October 1998, requires the governing bodies of other maintained schools of obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend before selling, or changing the use of, any school playing field that they own. The procedures to be followed are set out in the Department's consultation document. These include completion of an application form and local consultation.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State examines any application to dispose of school playing fields carefully, bearing in mind the provision of playing field space at the school and any shortage of playing fields at other local schools. It is necessary to ensure that following a disposal, there would be sufficient playing field area to meet the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999, and also that there is sufficient land retained to accommodate the possibility of reasonable future expansion of the school.

  Where land has transferred to a grant-maintained school from a local authority, my right hon. Friend has power under section 298(2) of the Education Act 1996 to direct that all or part of such land should be returned to the local education authority, or its successor. The return of such land is subject to the payment to the grant-maintained school of whatever consideration, if any, is considered appropriate. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend may direct that some or all of the proceeds of sale should be paid to the local education authority. Each application is considered on its merits.

  Engineering Students
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the percentage of female engineering graduates with(a) first degrees and (b) second degrees who gain employment related to their field of study. [70701]

  Mr. Mudie
  In 1996–97, the total number of women graduating from UK higher education institutions with first degrees in engineering was 2,206. Of those who stayed in the UK after graduation, 34 per cent. went into employment in occupations related to their field of study.

  In the same year, 650 women completed post-graduate degrees in engineering. Of those who stayed in the UK after graduation, 39 per cent. went into employment in occupations related to their field of study.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources for access funds will be made available for engineering students in further and higher education in England in 1998–99. [70702]

  Mr. Mudie
  In the current academic year (1998–99) £9 million was allocated to general Further Education Access Funds and £44 million to general Higher Education Access Funds. We have allocated a further £2.8 million this year for fee remission for further and higher education students on part-time courses who have lost their job since beginning their course. The criteria for issue of funds are general and take no account of course subject.
  716

  Literacy
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on standards of literacy in infant, junior and primary schools of the literacy hour. [71067]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Literacy Hour began in infant, junior and primary schools in September 1998. The vast majority of teachers are teaching the daily hour, which has had a considerable impact on teaching methods and organisation of lessons. Evaluations of the pilot National Literacy Project, published in December 1998 by OFSTED and the NFER, confirm that the Literacy Hour is based on teaching methods that will raise standards. Children who started some way below the national average in their reading scores made 8 to 12 months progress above what would normally be expected, in less than two years.

  New Deal (Wansdyke)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young unemployed people aged 18 to 25 years within each local enterprise company area in Wansdyke have entered the New Deal Gateway. [71071]

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

  Letter from Richard Foster to Dan Norris, dated 12 February 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question about New Deal for 18–24 year old participants in Wansdyke. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  I should say straightaway that it is not possible to give data broken down by local Training and Enterprise Council areas as data is collected by Employment Service Unit of Delivery areas.
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of November 1998 and Provisional Management Information to the end of December 1998 shows that, 634 young people have entered the New Deal for 18–24 year olds in the North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset Unit of Delivery which covers Wansdyke falls under.
  I hope this is helpful.

  New Deal (Schools)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many pupils aged five to 16 years are being educated in schools in the(a) Bath and North East Somerset and (b) South Gloucestershire Council area which have benefited directly from capital building projects under the Government's New Deal for Schools programme; [71074]

  (2) how many schools in the (a) Bath and North East Somerset and (b) South Gloucestershire Council area have benefited directly from capital building projects under the Government's New Deal for Schools programme. [71073]
  717
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of School which have benefited under New Deal for Schools

  Estimated number of pupils ages 5–16 years 1 attending schools which have benefited under the New Deal for schools

  Bath and North East Somerset

  85

  21,357

  South Gloucestershire

  12

  4,019

  1 The number of compulsory school age children as at January 1998 aged 4 to 15 as at 31 August 1997

  New Deal (Translation Services)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost of providing information and advisory services on the New Deal in (i) Vietnamese, (ii) Chinese and (iii) all languages other than English and Welsh. [71093]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is impossible to give the cost for providing information in each individual language as most publications produced in languages other than English and Welsh are a compilation of English and seven languages. These are Bengali, Cantonese (Chinese), Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, and Vietnamese. The cost of producing the publications was £73,395.

  The cost of providing advisory services to New Deal clients is not broken down by detailed ethnic group.

  New Deal (Advertising Costs)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost of advertising and marketing of the New Deal programme to date. [71188]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The cost of advertising and marketing New Deal up to 12 February is £12,872,815.

  New Deal
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what money was spent on advertising and publicity(a) in total and (b) on television for the New Deal by 31 December 1998. [70548]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: Out of a total of £12,501,848 spent and allocated on New Deal marketing and publicity up to 31 December 1998, a sum of £7,897,713 has been spent on television advertising.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what money he plans to spend on advertising and publicity for the New Deal in 1999. [70549]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: Plans have still to be finalised for 1999. £1.75 million is provisionally allocated for marketing, advertising and publicity.
  718
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many New Deal participants who had moved into employment were no longer in employment on 31 January; [70551]

  (2) how many New Deal participants who moved into subsidised employment have left that employment within nine months; [70556]

  (3) how many New Deal participants who moved into subsidised employment have left that employment within six months. [70557]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Damian Green, dated 16 February 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your questions on the employment of participants on New Deal for 18–24 year olds. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  Unless an individual returns to the Jobseeker's Allowance, the Employment Service does not have a record of destinations after they have left New Deal from the subsidised employment option or gone into unsubsidised employment. They may, for example, have stayed with the company which provided their placement or moved to another job.
  In response to your specific questions we do not therefore hold information on those New Deal participants who have left unsubsidised employment within nine months nor those who were no longer in employment on 31 January. I am, however, able to confirm that of the 12,492 who started on the Employment option between January 1998 and end November 1998, 2041 (16%) left that option within six months of starting it. As you will be aware, the reported statistics are revised to exclude those who do not stay in a New Deal job for 13 weeks—that is they are subsequently not counted as moving into employment.
  As part of the overall evaluation of the New Deal we will however be looking at the numbers of young people who have left New Deal and have not returned to Jobseeker's Allowance, using the Evaluation Database. The number of young people who are in jobs 6, 12 and 18 months after they leave the New Deal will be one of the core measures of each area's success.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Art Foundation Students
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many art foundation course students are undertaking a course in 1998–99 who will subsequently undertake a degree course commencing in 1999 and will be liable to pay tuition fees. [71802]

  Mr. Mudie
  The data requested are not currently available. Information on the number of students who are undertaking an arts foundation course in 1998–99 will be available in April this year from the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have benefited from the exemption from tuition fees for Gap year students. [71801]
  719
  Mr. Mudie
  The latest available figures from UCAS show that 18,960 UK domiciled students deferred entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduates courses from 1997 to 1998. However, not all of these students will necessarily have their fees paid as part of their mandatory award without reference to their income. The gap year concession applies only to those students who, by 1 August 1997, had received a firm offer of a place on a course deferred until 1998–99, or a conditional offer which was then confirmed when the student met the terms of that offer.

  Youth Workers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government will take to ensure an adequate supply of youth workers. [70298]

  Mr. Mudie
  The supply of trained youth workers is a matter for the relevant training institutions and employing local authorities.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government will take to reduce the geographical disparity in the ratio of youth workers to young people. [70296]

  Mr. Mudie
  It is for each local authority to decide its priorities and the level of funding for each of the services for which it is responsible, including the youth service, in the light of local needs.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set up a Youth Work Ethics Committee to regulate the youth worker profession. [70297]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government have no plans to set up a Youth Work Ethics Committee.

  Further Education
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be used to allocate money to further education colleges in 1999–2000 from funds designed to replace discretionary grants previously paid to students by local education authorities. [70987]

  Mr. Mudie
  The criteria for allocating student support funding to colleges in 1999–2000 are still being developed. These will be made clear when allocations are made to colleges in April.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many discretionary awards were made by each local education authority for students in further education in each of the last five years; [70984]

  (2) how much was the total allocation of discretionary awards to students in further education by each local education authority in each of the last five years; and what is the budgeted figure for 1998–99 for each authority. [70986]

  Mr. Mudie
  The numbers of, and expenditure on, discretionary awards made to students in further education by local education authorities in England and Wales in academic years 1992–93 to 1996–97 (latest available) are 720
  published in the annual "Statistics of Education, Student Support Volume, England and Wales"—copies of which are in the Library. The publications for 1992–93 and 1993–94 give data on numbers of further education awards in table 10 and data on expenditure in table 11; the equivalent tables for 1994–95 to 1996–97 are 9(a) and 9(b). Information on the budgeted figure for 1998–99 for each authority is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the money allocated to further education colleges in 1999–2000 from funds designed to replace discretionary grants previously paid to students by local education authorities will be ring-fenced for that purpose. [70985]

  Mr. Mudie
  I can confirm that funding will be allocated to colleges in 1999–2000 specifically for student support and must be used for that purpose.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if all further education colleges will receive an allocation of money from funds designed to replace discretionary grants previously paid to students by local education authorities; [70981]

  (2) how much further education colleges in each local authority area will receive in 1999–2000 from funds designed to replace discretionary grants previously paid to students by local education authorities; [70982]

  (3) if he will estimate how many colleges will receive money in 1999–2000 to replace discretionary awards previously made by local education authorities, the local authority for which has discontinued discretionary awards; [70983]

  (4) how much money will be allocated to further education colleges in Portsmouth from funds designed to replace the money previously paid as discretionary grants. [70988]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on the allocation of funding to colleges for student support in 1999–2000 will not be available until April.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current average hourly rate for part-time teaching staff working in further education colleges(a) employed by agencies and (b) employed by further education colleges. [69583]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current range of(a) starting salaries and (b) salaries at the highest point of the scale for teachers in further education colleges. [69581]

  Mr. Mudie
  At March 1997, the latest year for which information is available, 80 per cent. of new full-time further education staff in England were paid between £14,000 to £22,200.

  Information for the highest paid full-time lecturers in further education cannot be identified because the data available to my department do not distinguish between lecturers and senior staff in further education colleges.
  721
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the average salary of teachers in further education colleges for each of the last three years. [69580]

  Mr. Mudie
  The median salary of full-time lecturers and senior staff in further education colleges in England for each of the last three years for which figures are available were:

  March 1995: £21,300

  March 1996: £22,400

  March 1997: £22,900.

  Information on the salaries of part-time lecturers is not available centrally.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of all teaching staff in further education colleges have been employed on part-time or pro-rata contracts in each of the last five years. [69725]

  Mr. Mudie
  The proportion of part-time teaching staff in further education colleges in England is as follows:

  Percentage

  Part-time

  1994–95

  59

  1995–96

  61

  1996–97

  62

  It is not possible to provide data for the last five years as prior to 1994–95 the data were not collected in the format requested.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the proportion of all teaching staff in further education colleges employed on the senior lecturer grade in each of the last five years. [69724]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  School Performance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to commission research on the impact of socio-economic factors on school performance tables. [66603]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: We are currently considering our programme for future research. The impact of socio-economic factors upon school performance is one of the subjects under consideration in this programme.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, following implementation of the School Teachers' Review Body's recommendations on salaries for secondary school teachers, what will be the pay differential between the salaries of secondary school teachers and further education college lecturers at the lowest, mid-point and highest points of the salary scale. [69582]
  722
  Mr. Mudie
  Comparable information on scales in the school and FE sectors is not current available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total number of staff(a) in his Department and (b) in each of the agencies for which he is responsible and their location in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English regions. [70481]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: A regional distribution of DfEE staff, including staff in the Employment Service, can be found in Table 3 of "Civil Service Statistics 1998". A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to relocate staff in(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which he is responsible to the regions of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of unemployment; and what plans he has further to decentralise the location of his Department and its agencies. [70467]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: About half of DfEE staff are located outside London in Sheffield, Darlington, Runcorn and Regional Government Offices. Employment Service staff are located throughout England, Scotland and Wales serving the needs of the unemployed. The appropriate location of DfEE work across the department sites is kept under regular review. The Employment Service is by its nature already decentralised.

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

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply 4 February 1999, c. 709]: There was an error in the primary figures for Lambeth local education authority. Lambeth has 3,442 surplus primary school places, representing 17 per cent. of total capacity, and 10 primary schools with a surplus of 25 per cent. or more, representing 14 per cent. of all schools. This means there were 762,329 surplus school places in January 1998 and 2,530 schools with a surplus of 25 per cent. or more.

  Building Works (VAT)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local authority-partnership schools have basic needs capital building projects starting after 1 April; and what arrangements are in place for local authority-partnership schools to reclaim VAT paid on these projects. [71358]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not hold information on how many such schools have basic need projects starting after 1 April 1999. The Department provides additional funding where a local education authority (LEA) can demonstrate that there will be a shortfall of places in an area in the medium term. It is, however, for each LEA to decide how to meet that
  723
  shortfall, including how many of its existing schools to extend or adapt and what new schools to build. The Department itself provides grant directly to governors of voluntary aided and special agreement schools. We expect to fund 28 projects to meet Basic Need starting after 1 April 1999.

  The VAT treatment of capital building projects at schools maintained by LEAs depends upon the precise contractual arrangements in place.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the years 1990 to 1998 the number of press releases issued by his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [71485]

  Mr. Mudie
  The number of press releases issued between 1990 and 1998 for this Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies are as follows:

  Number

  Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (QCA)1

  269

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFCE)

  194

  Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE)

  171

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  36

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  79

  Employment Service (ES)2

  31

  1 Includes figures for the previous bodies (SCAA, SEAC, NCC, NC VQ)

  2 Figures since June 1997. Prior to that date press releases were included in Departmental releases and does not include releases put out regionally by the Employment Service.

  These are overall figures. A breakdown of figures year by year between 1990 and 1998 could not be supplied by the agencies concerned as no records were kept.

PRIME MINISTER

  Elections
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to civil servants on the conduct of Government business during the forthcoming elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and local councils on 6 May and to the European Parliament on 10 June. [72140]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have issued guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the period before the forthcoming elections.

  The guidance stresses that civil servants should conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service code and is based on the need to maintain political impartiality of the Civil Service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes.

  The guidance will come into force on 13 April for the 6 May elections and on 20 May for the 10 June elections.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and are also available from the Vote Office.
  724

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judge Willis
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the reason for Judge Willis being removed from hearing the case of R. v. Sparkes at the Bristol Crown Court in 1996–97; what advice was afterwards given by the Lord Chancellor to those responsible for the removal; if an apology was given to Judge Willis; and if he will make a statement. [71666]

  Mr. Hoon
  The circumstances of this matter have so far as possible been fully investigated by the Lord Chancellor. Following a series of related cases being heard by Judge Willis in late 1996, an allegation of bias was made by the prosecution, who proposed to make application to the senior Presiding Judge of the Western Circuit in open court for the appointment of another judge to hear the case of R.v. Sparkes which Judge Willis was due to try. The Presiding Judge was then engaged in a highly publicised trial attracting much press interest. He was of the opinion that no matter how fanciful the substance of the allegation it was undesirable that the application should be made. With (as he understood) the concurrence of the Recorder of Bristol and Judge Willis, he accordingly arranged for another judge to conduct the trial in R. v. Sparkes. He did so knowing that, if the Defence objected, they could apply to have Judge Willis reassigned to the original case. This is what, in the event, happened.

  The Lord Chancellor has informed the then Presiding Judge that he does not believe the matter was dealt with as it should have been. An allegation of bias should in his judgment be addressed in open court, or at least with all the parties present in chambers. In some circumstances, such an application might be made to the judge against whom bias is alleged.

  Unfortunately, Judge Willis died before the Lord Chancellor had completed his investigations and before any question of any apology could be considered. The Lord Chancellor would however wish to make plain that there was never any ground to question the integrity of the late Judge Willis, which remains wholly untarnished and the Presiding Judge never for a moment thought otherwise.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71265]

  Mr. Hoon
  Consideration has been given to the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the changes that would be necessary to its practices, policies and procedures. Plans are in place to meet the requirements under the Act both in October 1999 and those parts of the Act due to come into force in 2004. Access to information and the training and awareness of staff have been identified as the key areas where changes will need to be made before October 1999.
  725

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71279]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since the Department does not keep a separate record of all expenditure which can be attributed to spending on disabled people, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mediation UK
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department intends to support Mediation UK with core funding for 1999–2000. [71543]

  Mr. Hoon
  This Department does not intend to provide core funding for Mediation UK for the next financial year. It would be inappropriate to fund any particular mediation organisation until the Department's policy towards alternative dispute resolution in non-family civil disputes is settled.

  Public Awareness
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to increase public awareness of the work of his Department. [70756]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has recently published a free booklet called "Working for Justice: A Guide to the Lord Chancellor's Department." Written in clear English and attractively designed and illustrated, it explains the role and functions of the Department, as well as tracing the history of the office of Lord Chancellor. We have printed 70,000 copies and made them available to the public through all courts in England and Wales.

  Another recent publication intended to explain succinctly to the public how the department plans to take forward reform of the civil law is "Modernising Justice: A Summary of the Government's Proposals". We have printed 70,000 copies of this publication also, and made it available free of charge through the courts, public libraries and law firms. The White Paper itself is of course also available to the public.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department produces an annual report, setting out its policy objectives and expenditure plans. It is available to the public through HMSO bookshops.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department Internet website was upgraded last year and covers speeches, civil matters, criminal matters, legal aid, judges, magistrates, the courts, press notices and the department as a whole. There are websites for the Court Service and the Public Trust Office too.

  I undertake a regular programme of speeches and talk formally and less formally to a very wide range of people, as does the Lord Chancellor. We take every opportunity to explain the role of the department and to raise awareness of its policies.
  726
  Both the Lord Chancellor and I also use the media to put across the importance of the work of the department to as wide an audience as possible. The press office of the Lord Chancellor's Department issues press notices to the local, national and specialist media to keep them informed of all key developments.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in his Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70777]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received to this question from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 569.

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the post-1920 census returns have been transferred to the Public Record Office; and what would be the impact on staffing and accommodation at the Public Record Office of the transfer of all decennial census returns to the Office 30 years after their creation. [70993]

  Mr. Hoon
  None of the post-1920 census returns has been transferred to the Public Record Office.

  The post-1920 decennial census returns which were created more than 30 years ago occupy about 50 linear kilometres of storage space. If they were transferred to the Public Record Office they would fill up all storage space available now and require the provision of substantial additional accommodation. They would also require an estimated three additional members of staff for maintenance and security.

  Substantial additional storage space would also be required for the statutory transfers of records over the next decade or so which they would displace.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the failure of Registrars General, during the period 1969 to 1985, to transfer census returns to the Public Record Office not later than 30 years after their creation; and(a) when and (b) by whom this failure was first brought to the attention of a Lord Chancellor. [70995]

  Mr. Hoon
  The census returns in question were not transferred during the period 1969 to 1985 because at that time the advice was that the existence of a statutory bar to disclosure, established by the Census Act 1920, overcame the obligation on departments to transfer their records by the time they were 30 years old. However, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys wished its retention of the returns to be covered by the Lord Chancellor's approval and this was given in 1985.

  This matter was not brought to the attention of a Lord Chancellor since the fact that the records had not been trasferred was not then considered to be noncompliance with the provisions of the Public Record Acts.
  727

HEALTH

  Residential Care (Appointments)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the qualifications which will apply to applicants for employment as inspectors of residential care homes by Commissions for Care Standards; [70866]

  (2) what criteria will be used in the appointment of inspectors of residential care homes by Commissions for Care Standards. [70865]

  Mr. Hutton
  It will be for Commissions for Care Standards to set out the precise criteria for appointing inspectors, but they will have to recruit suitably fit people with the appropriate qualifications, experience and backgrounds in order to fulfil their regulatory function.

  The Department is working with interested parties to identify the occupational standards, qualifications and precise training needs of regulatory staff, and will consider as part of this work how to promote improved training arrangements in advance of the establishment of the Commissions.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of the drug methylphenidate hydrochloride in the treatment of children with attention deficit disorder; what research his Department is funding into side effects of methylphenidate hydrochloride; and if he will make a statement. [70909]

  Ms Jowell
  Methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin) has been assessed by the normal procedures for authorisation of a medicinal product in the United Kingdom to ensure its quality, safety and efficacy in the indication for use; in this case, the treatment of children over 6 years with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, where remedial measures alone have failed. The marketing authorisation states that it should be part of a comprehensive treatment programme including psychological, educational and social measures, under the supervision of a specialist in childhood behavioural disorders.

  As for all medicines, the safety of methylphenidate continues to be monitored by the Medicines Control Agency after it has been marketed. If new safety issues are identified, regulatory action is taken to update the authorised product information or take other appropriate action.

  Women (Engineering)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have been held by the Women's Unit with the Engineering Council to discuss ways of increasing the number of women entering the profession. [70705]

  Ms Jowell
  The women's unit has not held any discussions with the Engineering Council. Work on promoting science and engineering and technology (SET) as rewarding and fulfilling careers for women is taken forward by a specialist unit within the Office of Science and Technology (OST), the Promoting SET for Women Unit. They have an ongoing dialogue with the 728
  Engineering Council through the WISE campaign (Women into Science and Engineering). A careers guidance handbook has been published, sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry and WISE in addition to other key organisations, to help women consider how they might enter the field and plan a career within it. My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury recently hosted a reception in the House of Lords to promote the WISE campaign to a wider audience and seek further support, in particular from industry. OST will shortly be meeting with the chief executive of the Engineering Council and the WISE Campaign manager, the Women's Engineering Society and the Association of Women in Science and Engineering to look at the work of their organisations and of the Promoting SET for the women unit and to consider possible future collaboration.

  Allergy Services
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of allergy services. [71690]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department recognises the concerns expressed over the services available for the assessment and treatment of allergies in the National Health Service. Officials will soon be meeting representatives of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology and other relevant professional and patient support bodies to discuss the future of allergy services. The Society will be proposing an agenda for this meeting based on their preliminary discussions with the other interested parties.

  The Advisory Group on Medical Education and Training, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, is currently considering an application from the Royal College of Physicians' Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training for the recognition of allergy as a clinical specialty in its own right.

  Doctors
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of (1) the number of doctors practising in the NHS who are overseas trained and (ii) the percentage they constitute of the medical workforce; what estimate he has made of the number who will retire in the next 10 years; and what assessment he has made of the impact this will have on the need for(a) overseas recruitment and (b) increased training places in the United Kingdom; [71803]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (i) number and (ii) percentage of general practitioners in the NHS who are overseas trained; and what estimate he has made of the number who will retire in the next 10 years. [71804]

  Mr. Denham
  The autumn 1997 headcount of doctors in the National Health Service in England showed that there were 86,960 general practitioners (unrestricted principals) and hospital doctors, of whom 19,070 (22 per cent.) qualified outside the European Economic Area (EEA). Within these figures, there were 27,100 GPs (unrestricted principals), of whom 4,530 (17 per cent.) qualified outside the EEA.
  729
  It seems reasonable to assume that most of the doctors who will retire in the next decade will be drawn from the current stock of doctors who are aged 50 or over. The numbers in this category were as follows:

  Total

  Qualified outside the EEA

  GPs (unrestricted principals)

  8,070

  3,130

  Hospital doctors

  11,310

  3,570

  Totals

  19,380

  6,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures quoted are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census, 30 September 1997

  Department of Health General Medical Statistics, 1 October 1997

  Intake to undergraduate medical schools in the United Kingdom has risen steadily in the past decade. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee, that the intake should increase further, by nearly 20 per cent. over the next few years. This should mean a steady growth in the supply of UK-trained doctors, well into the next century. None the less, it seems likely that supply will be supplemented by a range of recruitment and retention initiatives, for example, the salaried GPs scheme and further overseas recruitment, where required.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce parity in pay rises between NHS staff covered by the Pay Review Body and those outside the Pay Review Body, and if he will make a statement. [71807]

  Mr. Denham
  We have signalled clearly that the award for nurses and the Professions Allied to Medicine is a special case and should not be seen as a yardstick for other National Health Service staff. We will open negotiations soon with non-review body staff groups and will seek a fair settlement which reflects labour market conditions.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average current starting salary for(a) a graduate nurse and (b) a graduate entrant Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer with a BSc degree. [71809]

  Mr. Denham
  The current minimum starting salary for newly qualified nurses, including graduate nurses, is £12,855. This is the minimum point on the Grade D salary scale, the maximum point on the scale being £14,705.

  The current minimum starting salary for a graduate entrant Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer with a Bachelor of Science degree is £7,476. This is the minimum point on the trainee MLSO salary scale, the maximum point being £9,796.

  The current minimum starting salary for a qualified MLSO, with BSc degree plus post-registration training, is £11,812. This is the minimum point on MLSO I salary scale, the maximum point being £15,546.
  730
  Employers have the freedom to place a nurse or a MLSO on any point of their appropriate salary scale.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the national Framework Agreement of 1995 for NHS staff; and if he will make a statement. [71808]

  Mr. Denham
  We published "Agenda for Change", our proposals for modernising the NHS pay system, on Monday 15 February. We are opening talks with NHS professional and staff organisations on the basis of this agenda.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of branded drugs prescribed by GPs in 1997–98 was prescribed by dispensing practices and what proportion by non-dispensing practices; [71568]

  (2) what proportion of (a) all drugs and (b) branded drugs prescribed by GPs were prescribed by dispensing practices in 1997£98. [71570]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage of items prescribed in general practice1 in England and dispensed in the community by prescriber, 1997–982

  Prescriber

  Prescribing practices3 (%)

  Dispensing practices4 (%)

  Branded, ie non-generic items 5

  82

  18

  All items

  91

  9

  1Information for items prescribed and dispensed in National Health Service hospitals is not available.

  2The prescription information was obtained from the Prescribing Analyses and Cost (PACT) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions written by general practitioners and practice nurses in England which are dispensed in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All figures exclude dressings and appliances.

  3Drugs prescribed by prescribing practices which are dispensed by community pharmacists.

  4Includes drugs prescribed by dispensing practices which are dispensed by community pharmacists.

  5 In PACT, prescription items can be prescribed generically, and recorded as a generic, but dispensed and reimbursed as a proprietary because a generic does not exist. The percentage of non generic drugs prescribed in the reply does not include these items.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average consultation rates of(a) a prescribing GP and (b) a dispensing GP. [71572]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of drugs expenditure in 1997–98 was on branded drugs; [71591]

  (2) what proportion of drugs prescribed in 1997–98 was branded. [71575]
  731
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Items prescribed in general practice 1 in England and dispensed in the community, 1997–98

  Per cent.

  Percentage of net ingredients cost2 of prescription items which were branded, i.e. non generic drugs

  49

  Percentage of prescription items which were branded, i.e. non generic

  37

  1 Information for items prescribed and dispensed in National Health Service hospitals is not available.

  2 The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charge income.

  Source:

  PPA, Prescribing Analyses and Cost (PACT) system

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of drugs were prescribed in 1997–98 in hospitals and by GPs. [71569]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available. Data for items prescribed in National Health Service hospitals are not held centrally.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total overspend in 1997–98 of health authority-administered Family Health Service drugs budgets. [71573]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997–98, health authorities overspent their Family Health Service drugs budget by a net total of £69 million.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average list size of(a) a prescribing GP and (b) a dispensing GP. [71571]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average list sizes for dispensing and non-dispensing unrestricted principals in England as at 1 October 1997

  Unrestricted principals1

  Average list size

  Dispensing2

  1,734

  Non-dispensing

  1,905

  1 An Unrestricted Principal is a practitioner who is in contract with a health authority to provide the full range of general medical services and whose list is not limited to any particular group of persons. Most people have an Unrestricted Principal as their general practitioner.

  2 A dispensing doctor is one who is authorised to prescribe and dispense prescriptions for patients who either have difficulty reaching a chemist due to inadequate means of transportation or who live in a rural area. The average list size for dispensing doctors includes all patients on the doctors' lists, not just those to whom the doctor is authorised to dispense.

  Source:

  Department of Health General Medical Services Statistics 1 October 1997

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) dispensing and (b) non-dispensing GPs there were at the latest available date. [71567]

  Mr. Denham
  There were 4,263 dispensing and 22,836 non-dispensing general practitioners at 1 October 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health General Medical Statistics 1 October 1997.
  732

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all appointments as(a) chairman and (b) non-executive director of (i) health authorities and (ii) trusts, made since 1 May 1997 where an elected member of a local authority has been appointed; and if he will give the party affiliation in each case. [71667]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list elected members of local authorities who have been appointed to serve on primary care groups stating(a) the party affiliation and (b) the (i) fee and (ii) allowances payable in each case. [71668]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on primary care group board members who are also elected members of local authorities is not available centrally. Information on the fees and allowances payable to primary care group board members is contained in Health Service Circular 1998/190, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Detailed information on the composition of primary care group board members is currently being collected and will be made public as soon as possible.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority(a) the amount of grant that will be payable in each year to support the National Carers Strategy, (b) the estimated number of carers and (c) the product of dividing (a) by (b). [71104]

  Mr. Hutton
  As one part of the carers strategy, we have announced a new special grant to local authorities of £140 million over three years to improve the range and diversity of provision aimed at giving carers a break. Under community care legislation, this provision can be made only for carers who are caring for someone assessed as needing community care services. A special grant report, listing the allocations for each local authority for the carers' grant, will be laid before Parliament shortly. Information is not currently available to allow an estimate to be made of the number of such carers in each local authority area.

  Diet
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the Government have taken to promote healthier diets; [70130]

  (2) what action the Government have taken to provide information in deprived areas on the recommended daily intake of fruit and vegetables. [70131]

  Ms Jowell:
  Diet is a matter of personal choice. However, we recognise that it is important that people have the information they need to decide what they want to eat. Our aim, therefore, is to provide clear, consistent and understandable advice to help them make healthy eating choices. For these reasons we fund the Health Education Authority to produce information and advice to increase the knowledge and skills of key professional groups to promote the principles of healthy eating and also to improve consumers' understanding of a healthy diet. "The Balance of Good Health" has been instrumental

  733
  in improving awareness of a healthy and balanced diet as it illustrates in a simple way, by using a picture of a plate, the proportions of the balance of foods recommended by independent experts.

  As part of the work which the Health Education Authority undertakes on promoting healthy eating, it has established, in partnership with the National Food Alliance, a food and low income database. This provides information about projects which have been established in response to difficulties which some communities have experienced in accessing fruit and vegetables. On my recent visit to Coventry, I saw one good example of such an initiative. Also using funding provided by the Department of Health, the National Food Alliance and the Health Education Authority together ran a series of regional seminars to bring together those working in the food and low income field to exchange best practice in planning, developing and carrying out community food initiatives and help others new to the field.

  More generally, I am the lead Minister for the policy action team which is charged with developing a strategy for improving shopping access for people living in deprived neighbourhoods. This is one of eighteen policy action teams which have been established following the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit's report on neighbourhood renewal last September. The policy action team aims to develop integrated and sustainable approaches on improving shopping access for those living in deprived neighbourhoods.

  Food (Salt)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to require manufacturers of pre-packed and pre-cooked meals to reduce the levels of salt in their food. [70132]

  Ms Jowell
  There is a large body of authoritative opinion that the amount of salt in the national diet is unnecessarily high, and we have therefore asked officials in the Department to explore with the food industry the scope for reducing the levels of salt in processed foods. Pending these discussions, we have no plans to require this from manufacturers.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71463]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department adheres to the Access of Information Code of Practice. The Department continually reviews the most cost effective methods for issuing press releases, however, no separate costing is available, as the cost is absorbed within the expenditure for running the Department's Communications Directorate.

  The following figures are the press releases issued since May 1997:

  May-December 1997: 320

  1998: 556

  January-12 February 1999: 71.

  734
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71448]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is in the table.

  The table indicates all press releases issued for the requested period 1990 to 1998. The Department's press office issues press releases on behalf of the Medical Devices Agency, Medicines Control Agency, National Health Service Pensions Agency, National Health Service Estates and some non-departmental public bodies.

  Year

  Total

  1990

  484

  1991

  529

  1992

  454

  1993

  683

  1994

  610

  1995

  588

  1996

  366

  1997

  406

  1998

  556

  Viagra
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to recover the cost of prescribing Viagra from those doctors who do so ahead of the Government's recommendations at the end of the consultation period; and if he will make a statement. [71193]

  Mr. Denham
  No. Viagra (sildenafil) is not included on either Schedule 10 or 11 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 and it would not be expected that such action would be taken unless, as in any other case, recovery of an amount were to be due by virtue of other provisions relating to general practitioners and their terms of service.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with health authorities regarding the prescribing of beta-interferon; what medical advice he has received regarding the benefits of that drug; what percentage of health authorities prescribe this drug; and if he will make a statement. [71192]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with health authorities regarding the prescribing of beta-interferon.

  Clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the use of beta-interferon-1b in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in adults was included in guidance issued to health authorities in November 1995 to help the National Health Service prepare for the introduction of beta-interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (Executive Letter (95) 97). This included advice that general practitioners should be encouraged not to prescribe beta-interferon themselves, and instead refer patients who apparently fulfil the indications for this form of treatment to a hospital neurologist.
  735
  The majority of beta-interferon prescribing should therefore take place in hospitals. Hospital prescribing and dispensing data are not held centrally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the future of East Timor. [69437]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain committed to the UN process of searching for a solution to the East Timor problem. We are in regular touch with the Indonesian and Portuguese foreign ministers and the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on East Timor, Jamsheed Marker. We welcome the recent Indonesian government announcement that East Timor might reach independence and hope it will prove to be a turning point.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government about military activity in East Timor since their offer of independence for the territory. [69445]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned at reports of growing tension in East Timor. We have been in regular touch with the Indonesian government about the situation there since their announcement that East Timor might reach independence.

  Windward Islands
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government towards the Windward Islands. [69438]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to have very good relations with the Windward Islands, and to maintain permanent representation in three of them. We continue to encourage increased efficiency in the banana industry and promote diversification. We are working through the WTO to try to resolve the dispute with the US over the revised EU banana regime.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in reaching a settlement in Cyprus. [69439]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson),Official Report, column 723.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the Cypriot application for membership of the European Union. [69446]

  Ms Quin
  The enlargement process is on track. For Cyprus (and the five Central European states considered ready) substantive negotiations on the first seven chapters of the Union acquis began on 10 November. We support 736
  the German Presidency's aim of opening negotiations on half of the 31 chapters with these countries by the Cologne Council in June.

  UN Committee 661
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the remit of United Nations Committee 661 in relation to sanctions on Iraq. [69440]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government fully support the crucial role of the United Nations Committee established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 661 in monitoring and implementing sanctions against Iraq, including humanitarian exemptions and relief under the Oil for Food programme.

  We took the lead last year in proposing improvements to the procedures of the Sanctions Committee to increase the effectiveness of the Oil for Food programme. According to the latest reports, this programme is having ever greater success in ensuring that humanitarian supplies reach those who need them.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [69441]

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist the middle east peace process. [R] [69449]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning the middle eastern peace process with middle eastern Governments; and if he will make a statement. [69457]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Together with our EU partners we have deplored the failure to complete the implementation of the Wye River Memorandum within the declared deadline, and we continue to urge both sides to implement their obligations in full and without new conditions.

  The peace process lost one of its leading advocates with the death of His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan on 7 February. The finest tribute to his memory would be to get the peace process back on track.

  Last week's visit to the region by German Foreign Minister Fischer as European Council Presidency was a welcome opportunity for us to explore ways that Europe can support the peace process.

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the International Criminal Court. [69442]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Seventy-five States, including the UK, have signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and one—Senegal—has ratified it. We intend that the UK should be among the first sixty States to ratify. The first meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the Court begins today in New York. The Government will
  737
  continue to lobby for international support for the Court, and will play a full part in the work of the Preparatory Commission.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Iranian Government to discuss restoration of full diplomatic relations. [69443]

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his last meeting with the Government of Iran. [69450]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's last meeting with a representative of the Iranian government was with Foreign Minister Kharrazi at the United Nations in New York in September. He and Dr. Kharrazi have subsequently spoken on the telephone. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to meet representatives of the Iranian government in the immediate future.

  Yemen
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take to ensure that British citizens arrested in Yemen receive a fair trial. [69444]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary left Prime Minister Iryani in no doubt about our serious concern that the British nationals arrested in Yemen be subject to the due process of law in open court, with our consular staff in attendance. We have discussed our concerns with Prime Minister Iryani on three separate occasions. The trial began on 27 January. We are monitoring the proceedings.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from other countries concerning the situation in Yemen. [70398]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has received no representations from other countries about the situation in Yemen, but has stayed in close touch with the Yemenis.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are currently in detention in Yemen. [70397]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 16 February 1999 there were eight British nationals in trial in Yemen.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate how many British citizens are currently in Yemen. [70396]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are 373 British nationals currently registered with the British Embassy in Sana'a. Allowing for others not registered it is estimated that the total number of British nationals based in Yemen may be around 400.
  738

  World Bank
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the President of the World bank to discuss its new programme of public-private partnerships. [69447]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have current plans to meet with the President of the World Bank.

  The UK is a key source of funding for the World Bank's Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility and the Business Partners for Development scheme.

  Mongolia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Mongolia. [69448]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Britain enjoys a very warm relationship with Mongolia. We have supported fully Mongolia's transition to democracy, and commend the Mongolian Government's commitment to achieving a market economy. Our educational and cultural links are strong and bilateral trade has increased. We hope that the relationship will continue to develop in all areas.

  Kosovo
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress towards a political settlement in Kosovo. [69451]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Contact Group Foreign Ministers met in Paris at the weekend to assess progress in the Kosovo peace talks. Although progress has been slower than we had hoped, the two parties remain engaged and we agreed to allow them a further week in which to conclude negotiations. It is now crucial that they reach agreement on the difficult issues outstanding.

  Provided that the parties live up to their responsibilities to reach an interim settlement, the international community is willing to devote significant civilian and military resources to helping the people of Kosovo rebuild their lives in conditions of security. But we will hold both sides accountable if they fail to take this opportunity.

  St. Malo Agreement
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with European partners about the St. Malo agreement on security and foreign policy. [69452]

  Ms Quin
  At St. Malo, we agreed with the French Government the principles which any new European defence arrangements should observe. Other European partners welcomed those ideas at the European Council in Vienna. Since then, there have been numerous contact at official level with both EU partners and NATO Allies to pursue detailed work.

  Somaliland
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Somaliland. [69453]
  739
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We do not recognise the region of somalia known as "Somaliland" as an independent sovereign state.

  Although we do recognise the Republic of Somalia, we do not maintain diplomatic relations there in the absence of a government.

  However, our Ambassador and his staff in Addis Ababa do maintain an unofficial dialogue with the self-proclaimed Government of Somaliland.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the proposals for EU enlargement under Agenda 2000; and if he will make a statement. [69454]

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress on EU enlargement under agenda 2000. [69579]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave in the House earlier today on this subject, in response to a question from my hon. friend the member for St. Helens, north (Mr. Watts),Official Report, column 715.

  Iraq (Kurds)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what political support Her Majesty's Government are giving to the Kurds of northern Iraq; and if he will make a statement on his Department's contacts with the Kurdish political parties. [69455]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As one of the co-sponsors of the Ankara Peace Process, we support the building of peace and stability for the Kurds in Iraq. RAF aircraft continue to participate in Operation Northern Watch, which plays a major role in protecting the people of northern Iraq from repression. Our bilateral aid programme for northern Iraq amounts to some £3 million a year.

  We have kept in close contact with the Kurdish Diplomatic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan as their leaders have worked towards reconciliation. We remain ready to assist that process in any way we can. We welcomed the agreement reached in Washington in September 1998 and have discussed with the parties' leaders here in London how we can help make the agreement work in practice. In addition to regular meetings with representatives of these and other Iraqi Kurdish groups in London, officials from our Embassy in Ankara also make periodic visits to northern Iraq to meet Kurdish leaders.

  European Institutions (Reform)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about reform of the European institutions; and if he will make a statement. [69456]
  740
  Ms Quin
  The Government have received representations on institutional reform both in contacts with partners and from non-governmental organisations. The Cologne European Council will take the next step by deciding how and when to tackle the institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to promote global nuclear disarmament; and if he will make a statement. [69458]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government set out their approach to nuclear disarmament in the Strategic Defence Review in July 1998. We intend to be a constructive actor in the nuclear disarmament process, using our influence to move it forward where we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out in his Parliamentary answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, columns 414–15, the steps this Government have already taken in this area.

  The highest priorities now are promoting the ratification of START II by the Russian Duma; securing entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the steps taken by his Department to support international work on environmental issues. [69459]

  Mr. Fatchett
  They are many and varied: we are working in international fora, including G8 and CHOGM, with colleagues from other Departments to achieve better protection of the international environment and sustainable use of natural resources. Under our Presidency of the EU, we achieved our objective at the European Council in June 1998 of agreement to integrate the environment into all areas of EU policy-making. We co-funded, with DfID, a successful Caribbean marine biodiversity workshop co-chaired with Jamaica in October 1998. We have contributed to the leading role the British Government have been able to take in international environmental negotiations, for example the climate change conference in Buenos Aires in November 1998. We are now building a closer relationship with business and NGO's on the environment, through our FCO/Business Energy Challenge, and our programme to support small environmental projects.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cumulative cost incurred by his Department for ministerial use of RAF and chartered aircraft in the year to 1 May 1997. [69074]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The total cumulative cost of ministerial use of RAF and chartered aircraft in the year to 1 May 1997 was just over £1.006 million.
  741

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the name of the 16 year-old Iraqi youth, imprisoned since the age of five years for throwing a stone at a picture of Saddam Hussein, to whom he has referred in public statements. [69786]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary never purported to know the boy by name. He received an account, in good faith, of this episode. On the basis of what he already knew of Saddam Hussein's regime he found it convincing and in character. I refer my hon. Friend to the report of September 1998 of the UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq, Mr. Max Van Der Stoel, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports he has received of an incident on 3 February in Idi Cut, East Aceh in which Indonesian soldiers opened fire on civilians; and what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on this incident; [70600]

  (2) if he will express to the Indonesian Government the British Government's concern about armed violence in Aceh; and if he will request the Indonesian authorities to reduce the number of military personnel in Aceh. [70599]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received reports of a serious incident on 3 February in the village of Idi Cut, East Aceh, in which soldiers opened fire on a crowd. A number of deaths have been confirmed. Where there is evidence of serious human rights violations in Indonesia, we continue to raise our concerns in robust terms with the Indonesian Government.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of persecution of minority(a) political parties and (b) religions in Pakistan. [70376]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are monitoring the situation closely. I made clear during my visit last week our concern at reports of abuses against minorities.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will raise in bilateral talks with the Government of Pakistan the extent to which the fundamental rights guaranteed by the country's constitution are being honoured; and what steps he is taking to seek to ensure these rights are honoured. [70375]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I raised this issue with Pakistan's Minister of Law on 8 February. He told me that he was concerned that all Pakistanis received the rights granted to them under the constitution. We will continue to follow this issue closely.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from officials in Pakistan about the growth of Muslim extremism in Pakistan; and what assessment he has made of its possible effects on Anglo-Pakistan relations. [70371]
  742
  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Missions report on all aspects of Pakistan. Our relations with Pakistan are deep-rooted and friendly. An objective of our regular bilateral dialogue is to ensure this remains the case.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department made to the Pakistan Government during the visit to Pakistan by the Minister of State between 8 and 10 February, concerning the suppression of the Daily Jang newspaper; and if he will make a statement. [71184]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 8 February I expressed concern to the Minister of Law that the Pakistan Government's dispute with the Jang Group threatened to undermine press freedom and democracy. The Minister replied that freedom of speech and an independent press were separately guaranteed under Pakistan's Constitution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to call for the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. [70577]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no plans to call for Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Commonwealth. Such action is a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the state of governance in Zimbabwe. [70582]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We receive regular reports on developments in Zimbabwe. There is clearly cause for concern in a number of areas, chiefly the economy, Zimbabwe's involvement in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and recent human rights abuses.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a British minister last met President Mugabe; and what was discussed. [70581]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I met President Mugabe on 4 December 1998. We discussed the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, land redistribution in Zimbabwe and human rights. I also briefed him on the UK's position on Libya/Lockerbie.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Mugabe following his recent broadcast on state television on possible action against the judiciary and others. [70583]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We had already made representations, here and in Harare, about recent human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, including the detention of Mr. Chavunduka and Mr. Choto, and the disturbing allegations that they were tortured while in army detention.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Mugabe about the detention of the journalists Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto. [70584]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are shocked by the detention and apparent torture of Mr. Chavunduka and Mr. Choto by the military authorities in Zimbabwe, and applauds the prompt action by the judiciary in
  743
  ordering Mr. Chavunduka's release. I have already sought assurances from the Zimbabwe Government that it will take swift action to investigate these serious allegations; and to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have also made representations on these lines with our European Union partners in Harare.

  We await a formal response from the Government of Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans his Department has to protect British citizens in Zimbabwe. [70585]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  All diplomatic missions overseas prepare contingency plans where there is a potential threat to the safety of the British community from civil unrest or a deterioration in the security situation. We currently hold such a plan for Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Commonwealth Secretariat about civil rights abuses in Zimbabwe. [70586]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. I have made representations direct to the Government of Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last called in the Zimbabwean Ambassador to protest about civil rights abuses in Zimbabwe. [70587]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 22 January we summoned the Acting High Commissioner for Zimbabwe, to protest about the detention and apparent torture of Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto. We made it clear that we expect the Zimbabwe Government to uphold international human rights standards, and quickly to investigate allegations of abuse.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Zimbabwe about allegations of torture and harassment of journalists in Zimbabwe. [69726]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government are shocked by the detention and apparent torture of Mr. Chavunduka and Mr. Choto by the military authorities in Zimbabwe, and applaud the prompt action by the judiciary in ordering Mr. Chavunduka's release. I have already sought assurances from the Zimbabwe Government that they will take swift action to investigate these serious allegations; and to bring perpetrators to justice. We have also made representations on these lines with our European Union partners in Harare.

  We await a formal response from the Government of Zimbabwe.

  King Leka
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about the arrest and detention of former King Leka of Albania. [70576]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made no such representations to the South African Government. This is a matter for the South African judicial system.
  744

  Party Political Conferences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treaty base which permits the Commission representation in the United Kingdom to participate at party political conferences. [70603]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Commission representation in the United Kingdom attends party political conferences as an international visitor, on the same basis as other international organisations and representatives of other countries. Invitations to attend these conferences are a matter for the political party concerned. No specific Treaty base is required.

  Gibraltar (Border Delays)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 703, if he will make a statement on the border delays which have occurred at Gibraltar since the agreement between the Government of Gibraltar and Spanish fishermen. [70665]

  Ms Quin
  Since 3 February there have been delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain which have, on occasion, reached up to five hours. Such delays are unjustifiable and unacceptable. The Embassy 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.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current waiting times in each queue for entry to the United Kingdom in(a)Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Islamabad and (d) Dhaka. [70395]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The latest available figures show that in Bombay, New Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka an average of 97 per cent. of applicants for non-settlement visas, whose applications are straightforward, receive their visas within 24 hours of applying.

  The current (10 February) waiting times for an interview in connection with an application for settlement in the United Kingdom, in Bombay, New Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka are as follows (figures are in weeks):

  Dependent relatives over 65; compassionate cases

  Spouses children under 18

  Fiance(e)s other settlement categories

  Re-applied

  Bombay

  nil

  8

  8

  8

  New Delhi

  nil

  14

  23

  29

  Islamabad

  7

  27

  28

  32

  Dhaka

  16

  28

  32

  36

  745
  The current waiting times for an interview (Tier 3) in connection with a non-settlement application is as follows (in days):

  Days

  Bombay

  nil

  New Delhi

  nil

  Islamabad

  115

  Dhaka

  nil

  1 Wherever possible urgent compassionate cases are interviewed on day of application

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at each post in the Indian subcontinent and in (1) Manila, (2) Bangkok, (3) Lagos, (4) Abuja, (5) Accra, (6) St. Petersburg and (7) Moscow who was interviewed in (i) December 1997, (ii) June 1998 and (iii) December 1998 waited before interview, in each queue; and how long a person who applied in (A) June 1998, (B) September 1998, (C) December 1998 and (D) January 1999 can be expected to wait, at the same posts and in each queue. [70743]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The statistics that are collected centrally could not provide accurate figures to reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. A comprehensive reply could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The statistics requested in the second part of my hon. Friend's question are as follows.

  Post average waiting time for settlement interview at the end of each month (in weeks)

  June 1998

  September 1998

  December 1998

  January 1999

  Islamabad

  Q1

  10

  6

  7

  7

  Q2

  17

  17

  26

  27

  Q3

  26

  24

  28

  28

  Q4

  30

  28

  32

  32

  Karachi

  17

  16

  11

  6

  Dhaka

  Q1

  14

  15

  16

  16

  Q2

  16

  18

  22

  28

  Q3

  14

  14

  14

  n/a

  Q4

  20

  22

  32

  36

  Calcutta

  5

  1

  0

  n/a

  New Delhi

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  15

  17

  12

  12

  Q3

  23

  25

  25

  24

  Q4

  30

  32

  32

  20

  Bombay

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  10

  12

  12

  8

  Q3

  10

  12

  12

  8

  Q4

  10

  12

  12

  8

  Madras

  4

  3

  5

  5

  Colombo

  4

  7

  4

  2

  Manila

  8

  6

  6

  n/a

  Bangkok

  8

  7

  3

  7

  Lagos

  6

  11

  5

  3

  Abuja

  3

  12

  7

  5.5

  Accra

  20

  17

  3

  7.2

  St. Petersburg

  5

  1

  2

  n/a

  Moscow

  1.5

  2

  4

  0

  Notes

  Q1 = Dependent relatives over 65; special compassionate cases

  Q2 = Spouses, children under 18

  Q3 = Fiancé(e)s; other settlement categories

  Q4 = Reapplicants

  n/a = Not applicable
  746

  Bangladesh (British High Commissioner)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to announce the name of the new British High Commissioner in Bangladesh. [70400]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We aim to announce Ambassadorial, Governor and High Commissioner appointments three months before the appointment is taken up. In the case of Dhaka, the present High Commissioner, Mr. David Walker, is due to leave post towards the end of 1999.

  Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit. [70399]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not visited the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit (MVCU). However, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, who has responsibility for entry clearance matters, last visited MVCU in May 1997. My noble Friend also has regular contact with MVCU about specific visa cases, and addresses Entry Clearance training courses.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the items sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [70410]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The National Assets Register published in November 1997 gave details of asset holdings as at 1 April 1997. Since that date the FCO has sold 58 overseas estate assets and 181 vehicles. Details are as listed. Total proceeds amounted to £12.65m. Property sales in the pipeline are expected to realise a further £40m.

  The FCO sale of assets—Property from 1 April 1997 to date

  Country

  Description

  Number of sales

  Proceeds (£000)

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  Dwelling

  1

  58

  Namibia

  Windhoek

  Dwelling

  1

  61

  Lesotho

  Maseru

  Land

  2

  54

  France

  Paris

  Dwelling

  11

  1,011

  Residence

  1

  1,661

  Marseilles

  Residence

  1

  691

  South Africa

  Johannesburg

  Dwelling

  3

  100

  Cape Town

  Dwelling

  1

  296

  Pretoria

  Dwelling

  1

  135

  Holland

  The Hague

  Dwelling

  3

  226

  Zambia

  Lusaka

  Dwelling

  4

  272

  Spain

  Madrid

  Dwelling

  1

  91

  Mozambique

  Maputo

  Dwelling

  1

  82

  Switzerland

  Zurich

  Residence

  1

  1,086

  Geneva

  Dwelling

  4

  983

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  Dwelling

  1

  65

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  Dwelling

  1

  32

  Finland

  Helsinki

  Dwelling

  3

  541

  Guyana

  Georgetown

  Dwelling

  1

  145

  Solomon Isles

  Honiara

  Dwelling

  1

  53

  Germany

  Berlin

  Land

  1

  127

  747

  The FCO sale of assets—Property from 1 April 1997 to date

  Country

  Description

  Number of sales

  Proceeds (£000)

  Portugal

  Oporto

  Land

  1

  781

  Trinidad

  Port of Spain

  Dwelling

  1

  162

  Columbia

  Bogota

  Offices

  1

  539

  Dwelling

  1

  46

  Morocco

  Casablanca

  Offices

  1

  863

  Swaziland

  Mbabane

  Dwelling

  1

  29

  Norway

  Oslo

  Dwelling

  1

  201

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Dwelling

  2

  672

  Ecuador

  Quito

  Residence

  1

  188

  Land

  1

  135

  Australia

  Canberra

  Dwelling

  1

  141

  Iceland

  Reykjavik

  Dwelling

  1

  42

  Albania

  Tirana

  Dwelling

  1

  65

  Proceeds

  £11.63m

  Vehicles

  (From 1 April 1997 to 30 September 1998. The latest date for which information is available)

  Heavy Commercial

  5

  Light Commercial

  34

  Motor Cars

  142

  Proceeds

  £ 1.02m

  Total Proceeds

  £12.65m

  Russia (Anti-semitism)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on anti-semitism in Russia. [70949]

  Ms Quin
  Her Majesty's Government share the wide public and parliamentary concern about recent anti-semitic statements in Russia. We have told the Russian authorities that racial intolerance and extremist political activities are wholly unacceptable and most recently last week I raised this with the Chairman of President Yeltsin's Commission on Human Rights. We look to the Russian government and the regional administrations to take firm action to deal with anti-semitism, and we welcome the strong condemnation of racial intolerance by President Yeltsin in November last year.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Russian Government consequent upon anti-semitic attacks on Marina Roshcha synagogue and Vostryakovskoye cemetery last year. [70950]

  Ms Quin
  The British Ambassador in Moscow and, at our instigation, the EU Presidency, have made strong representations about the anti-semitism in Russia, but have not specifically referred to these attacks. We and our EU partners made clear to the Presidential Administration, the Communist leadership and the Duma that antisemitism is wholly unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will reinforce these messages personally when he visits Russia. We welcome President Yeltsin's condemnation of the attack on the Marina synagogue.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning statements on Zionism made in December 1998 by the leader of the Communist Party. [70951]
  748
  Ms Quin
  The British Ambassador in Moscow raised our concerns about anti-semitism in Russia with both the Presidential Administration and Mr. Zyuganov himself before the Communist leader's statement of 23 December. At our instigation, the EU Presidency in Moscow expressed EU concerns to Deputy Foreign Minister Gussarov on 28 January, and will follow up shortly with Mr. Zyuganov.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government on anti-semitism in Russia. [70948]

  Ms Quin
  The British Ambassador made representations to the Presidential Administration on 3 December; the leader of the Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov on 4 December; and Deputy Foreign Minister Avdeev on 15 January. At our instigation, the EU Presidency formally raised it with Deputy Prime Minister Gussarov on 28 January. I also expressed our concerns to President Yeltsin's Human Rights adviser, Professor Kartashkin, on 11 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise this issue during his forthcoming visit to Russia.

  Burmese Military Offensive
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage the Thai Government to increase the security of refugee camps along the Burmese border during the current dry season Burmese military offensive. [70748]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Following rumours of a possible Burmese attack on the Thai-Burma border, the British Embassy in Bangkok last week raised with the Thai authorities our concern for the security of refugees in the area. The Thais assured us that they were alive to the risk of dry season attacks and were taking measures to ensure the protection of refugees.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to put pressure on the Burmese military regime to cease ethnic cleansing actions against ethnic minorities in Burma. [70749]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Burmese regime our deep concern at their human rights violations, particularly those of ethnic minorities. In December 1998, we co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution which strongly urges the SPDC to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We, and our EU Partners, are also working towards a tough resolution at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. We will continue to take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the regime.

  Conventional Arms Working Group
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of future meetings of Conventional Arms Working Group. [71066]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The next meeting of COARM will take place on 18 March. The final COARM of the German Presidency is scheduled for 26 May but this date may be changed in order to avoid clashing with a meeting of the Wassenaar Arrangement.
  749
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the conclusions of the Conventional Arms Working Group meetings for December and January. [71048]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Applications for access to Council documents can be made to the General Secretariat of the Council, which suggests to the Council what action should be taken on individual applications.

  There are no formal conclusions of CFSP Working Group meetings. The outcome of proceedings of the COARM meeting on 28 January 1999 can be applied for from the Council Secretariat, under Council Decision 93/731/EC on access to Council documents. There was no COARM meeting in December 1998.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agendas of the Council of Ministers' Conventional Arms Working Group working group meetings for December and January. [71047]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There was no COARM meeting in December 1998. The COARM meeting on 28 January discussed the implementation of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports; prevention of illicit arms trafficking to and within the Great Lakes region; and controls exercised by Member States on the trafficking and brokering of arms.

  Arms Brokers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the numbers of arms brokers operating in the UK. [71045]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made no estimate of the numbers of arms brokers operating in the UK.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to respond to the Matutes proposals regarding the future of Gibraltar. [71771]

  Ms Quin
  We have always said that we will respond to the proposals made by Sr Matutes at the next Brussels Process meeting. No date has yet been fixed.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to alter the constitutional status of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement on the likely date of implementation. [71693]

  Ms Quin
  We have had preliminary technical discussions with the Government of Gibraltar about their ideas for constitutional change. No formal proposals have yet been made.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Spanish nationals normally domiciled in Spain are regularly employed in Gibraltar. [71695]

  Ms Quin
  On 12 February this year, the Government of Gibraltar's records listed 1,741 Spanish nationals as working in Gibraltar but residing in Spain. All employers 750
  in Gibraltar are required to register their personnel with the Employment and Training Board, irrespective of nationality.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Spanish Foreign Minister's statement that he has breached an agreement made between them on Gibraltar in October 1998. [71585]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not breached the understanding agreed with the Spanish Foreign Minister in October 1998. There were difficulties in making the understanding work at the local level. We now hope that the local agreement reached between the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the fishermen, building on the October understanding, will continue to work satisfactorily.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what understanding was arrived at between himself and the Spanish Foreign Minister over Gibraltar at their meeting in October 1998. [71587]

  Ms Quin
  On 5 October 1998, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reached an understanding with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the situation that prevailed in British waters around Gibraltar from 1991–97, when fishing took place in moderation and the fishermen respected the authority of the Gibraltar law enforcement agencies. They agreed that we should revert to that situation.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the European Commission since 1 February on the issue of Spain's treatment of Gibraltar; when they were made; and to whom. [71713]

  Ms Quin
  The UK Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels wrote both to the President of the European Commission and to his Chef de Cabinet on 11 February about recent developments concerning Gibraltar. His staff had briefed the cabinet of the Commissioner Gradin and other relevant cabinets in early February concerning the closure of the border by Spanish fishermen.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to ensure that Gibraltar driving-licence holders can enter Spain. [71722]

  Ms Quin
  We are monitoring the Spanish approach to Gibraltar-issued driving licences. Driving licences issued in Gibraltar are EU licences. EU driving licences must be mutually recognised by member states under the requirements of the EU Second Driving Licence Directive. We look to the Spanish authorities to recognise these documents in conformity with EU obligations.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if representations made to the Spanish Government on 10 February were made by(a) minister and (b) officials. [71716]

  Ms Quin
  HM Ambassador in Madrid raised the Spanish Foreign Minister's comments to the Spanish Congress with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 10 February and called on the Ministry in person on
  751
  11 February to pursue the matter. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Spanish Foreign Minister on 11 February.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the recently agreed Fisheries Agreement between Gibraltar and the Spanish Fishermen's Union. [71725]

  Ms Quin
  We welcome the agreement reached on 3 February between the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and representatives of local Spanish fishermen, which builds on the understanding agreed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with the Spanish Foreign Minister in October 1998. These new arrangements have since been working well in practice.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends in the event that the Spanish Foreign Minister refuses Gibraltar-bound civil airlines the right to overfly Spanish airspace. [71723]

  Ms Quin
  The Spanish Foreign Minister has not informed us of any present intention to refuse Gibraltar-bound civil aircraft the right to overfly Spanish airspace. It would be extraordinary and unprecedented for an EU Member State to impose an overflight ban on civil aircraft of a European partner.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the dates of all his attempts to converse with the Spanish Foreign Minister to discuss Gibraltar in the past two weeks, indicating the means employed and the outcome of those attempts; [71715]

  (2) on what occasions the Spanish Foreign Minister has contacted (a) him and (b) his office about Gibraltar in the past two weeks. [71720]

  Ms Quin
  The two Ministers' offices spoke on the telephone several times but were unable to set up a telephone conversation between the Ministers until 11 February.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of all the conversations he had with the Spanish Foreign Minister to discuss Gibraltar in the past two weeks; and if he will make a statement on these conversations. [71714]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 25 January and in a telephone conversation on 11 February. The first conversation was about problems over fishing in British waters around Gibraltar. The second also covered Spanish restrictions on movement across the Gibraltar border, the implementation of EU Directives in Gibraltar and reports of other planned Spanish restrictions. The two Ministers agreed to work to improve the situation, and to meet again on 21 February.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed border restrictions and delays at the La Linea Frontier with the Spanish Government; and if he will make a statement. [71717]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed this issue with the Spanish Foreign Minister in a telephone conversation on 11 February.
  752
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to respond to the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty of Gibraltar, tabled on 10 December 1997. [71718]

  Ms Quin
  We have always said that we will respond to the Spanish proposals at the next Brussels Process meeting. No date has yet been fixed.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to end restrictions on the rights of Gibraltarians to pass across their border freely. [71721]

  Ms Quin
  In our discussion of Gibraltar with the Spanish government, we have always emphasised that border restrictions going beyond those compatible with EU norms for a light passport check and customs control (Gibraltar is outside the Community customs territory) are unjustified and counter-productive. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke on the telephone to the Spanish Foreign Minister on this subject on 11 February. The Embassy in Madrid has also raised it on several occasions with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I have raised it with my counterpart, Senor de Miguel. We again made it clear to the Spanish authorities that we look to them to allow movement across the border in conformity with EU obligations. We have also drawn the current situation at the Gibraltar/Spain border to the attention of the President of the European Commission.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to discuss the recently agreed Fisheries Agreement between Gibraltar and the Spanish Fishermen's Union with the Spanish Foreign Minister. [71724]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with the Spanish Foreign Minister when they spoke on the telephone on 11 February.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the residents of Gibraltar over Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty of Gibraltar, tabled on 10 December 1997; and if he will make a statement. [71719]

  Ms Quin
  We have received numerous individual representations from residents of Gibraltar, as well as a petition organised by the Self Determination for Gibraltar Group. All have called on HMG to reject the proposals.

  Spain (Tourism)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the estimated value of British tourism to mainland Spain in the last year for which figures are available.[71699]

  Ms Quin
  The latest official figures available from the Office for National Statistics Tourism Trends show that in 1997 the total number of British visitors to Spain (both tourist and business), was 8.25 million. British visitors spent a total of £2.825 billion during the year. The figure for 1998 will be higher as the number of British tourists to Spain last year rose significantly over preceding years.
  753

  Prime Minister (Articles)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those articles, written by the Prime Minister, which his Department has placed through overseas posts in foreign newspapers and journals; and if he will deposit the English version in the Library. [71145]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 642.

  Biosafety
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what input his Department has made in determining the Government's objectives in the forthcoming negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. [70936]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The UK has reached a common position with EU partners on the objectives for the Biosafety Protocol: to secure an instrument that provides necessary environmental safeguards without hampering trade. FCO Posts have recently conducted a major lobbying exercise in non-EU countries to present the EU and UK position on the Protocol. The results of this exercise have helped to inform the preparations for the final negotiations of the Protocol.

  Al-Shifa Factory, Khartoum
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was engaged in commercial production of medicines and drugs. [71761]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We understand that the Al-Shifa plant was involved in commercial pharmaceutical production.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who was the first person in his Department to have sight of a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC 116 of Session 1998–99); and at what time and on what day it was seen. [71829]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Copies of the report were collected from the Foreign Affairs Committee office at 0800 on 9 February by the Head of Parliamentary Relations Department and the Parliamentary Clerk.

  EU Membership
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what percentages the entry of the six current applicant countries for EU membership into the EU will increase(a) the EU's population and (b) the EU's GDP. [71085]

  Ms Quin
  We cannot of course predict the population or GDP of the candidates or the 15 current EU member states at the time of the first accessions. However recent figures indicate that enlargement to include the six candidates currently in accession negotiations would 754
  increase the EU' s population by some 17 per cent. (based on figures in Agenda 2000 published by the European Commission in July 1997) and GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) by about 8 per cent. (based on figures released by Eurostat on 11 September 1998).

  Weapons Seizure (Antwerp)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Belgium Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the seizure at Antwerp on 7 February of consignments of weapons destined for Eritrea, being transported by a British company. [71384]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We received no representations from the Belgium Ministry of Foreign Affairs about seizures at Antwerp on 7 February.

  We did, however, receive a letter from the Belgian Embassy in London on 6 November 1998 informing us that Belgian Customs had stopped, in August, a shipment of goods originating in Germany destined for Eritrea. They informed us that a British company was involved in organising the shipment. The matter is before the Belgian courts. We will continue to monitor developments.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the numbers of Serbs displaced from their homes in Krajina; how many have since been permitted to return; what representations he has made to the Croatian authorities about the problem; and if he will make a statement. [71321]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We receive regular reports on the refugee situation in the former Yugoslavia from organisations such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM).

  According to UNHCR figures, there remain 220,000 Croatian Serb refugees outside Croatia. There are also some 8,000 Serb refugees in the Creation region of Eastern Slavonia who were displaced from their homes. Up until 4 February 1999, 28,000 Croatian Serb refugees are reported to have returned to Croatia.

  We take every opportunity to impress on the states of the former Yugoslavia the importance we place on refugee return. I most recently raised this issue with the Croatian Assistant Foreign Minister when he called on me in London on 8 February.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received in respect of the massacre at Bosanski Brod in 1992; if any persons have been indicted and brought before The Hague International War Crimes Tribunal for their involvement; and if he will make a statement. [71322]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have received no recent reports in respect of a massacre at Bosanski Brod in 1992 and are not aware of any indictments released by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia relating to such a massacre. However, the destruction of property in Bosanski Brod in 1992 is mentioned briefly in an
  755
  indictment against Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. It is open to ICTY to issue further indictments if it has sufficient evidence to prosecute individuals suspected of war crimes anywhere in the territory of the Former Yugoslavia.

  EU Institutional Charges
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the institutional changes within the EU, with particular reference to relations between national parliaments, following the coming into effect of the Amsterdam Treaty. [69432]

  Ms Quin
  The Protocol on national parliaments attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for a consultative role for COSAC—the representatives of European Affairs Committees from national parliaments in the European Union. We welcome this development. The Protocol also provides for greater involvement of national parliaments in EU business through the six-week minimum scrutiny period. This will reinforce the changes to our national scrutiny system introduced last November.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made to improve Anglo-Sudanese diplomatic relations in the last year; and if he will list the formal contacts to this end between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sudan, and the results of these contacts. [71758]
  756
  Mr. Fatchett
  We have had regular contact with the Sudanese authorities since the withdrawal of British staff from Khartoum in August last year. Through these contacts we continue to work towards the normalisation of Anglo-Sudanese relations. Contacts are ongoing.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 30 November 1998,Official Report, column 96, if Her Majesty's Government have supported resolutions or draft resolutions calling for an independent United Nations investigation of the Al-Shifa factory site in Khartoum. [71759]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A draft resolution on this issue is still on the table at the UN Security Council but has not been put to the vote.

  Bilateral US/Sudan dialogue on the issue continues. Meanwhile we encourage Sudan to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is supported by a verification regime consisting of data declarations and on-site inspections.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Ambassador to Sudan on whether the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was a heavily guarded military installation. [71760]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Her Majesty's Ambassador to Khartoum visited the Al-Shifa factory only once; for the official opening ceremony in July 1997. He did not report that it was a heavily guarded military installation.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn

UNESCO
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to maximise the benefits both for UNESCO and the United Kingdom of the United Kingdom's renewed membership of the organisation.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government rejoined UNESCO in order to support the organisation's purpose of advancing international peace through intellectual co-operation and to work with UNESCO to contribute to the international goals for poverty elimination. To that end we have maintained an active dialogue with UNESCO. We have recently put forward proposals to engage British civil society through a UK commission for UNESCO. These will be discussed at a consultation meeting on 25th February.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she accept that the decision to rejoin was widely welcomed, not least by those of us who belong to the UNESCO forum? Does she also accept that when I attended a recent conference of UNESCO in Paris, it was good to hear senior officials speaking so positively about British participation and co-operation since we rejoined?
However, does my noble friend agree that the purpose of belonging is to enable those in the front line of education, culture and science to benefit from, participate in, and contribute towards the programmes of UNESCO? Does she therefore agree that it is most important for the new national commission to be seen to be fully representative of those communities in Britain? How will that be achieved?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments about the importance of our rejoining UNESCO. Since rejoining, we have taken a place on the executive board. We have a strong commitment to establishing a national commission but we want to get it right. We are consulting across government and with civil society. We want a commission which is cost effective and which taps into existing civil society structures. We envisage a commission which has representation from interested civil society groups, social sciences, the exact and natural sciences, environmental sciences, industry and commerce, culture and communications, and education and youth.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over a year ago I asked her noble friend the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when we could
542
expect the United Kingdom to ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention on the illicit traffic in cultural property? The noble Lord indicated that he hoped to reply rapidly. Can the noble Baroness tell us when that rapid reply will become available?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I could say to the noble Lord, "rapidly"! However, I undertake to give the noble Lord as exact a reply as I can.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Government use their influence in UNESCO to ensure that more is done to fulfil its educational mission? I understand that at present the organisation interprets education as being at university level and above and does not make the contribution it might to improving the literacy of the poorest countries in the world to which the noble Baroness referred in her first reply.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that education is one of the key areas in which we anticipate working closely with UNESCO, in particular as a core area of our White Paper is the elimination of world poverty. We want to look at universal primary education and the education of women and girls. We shall work with UNESCO not only in terms of higher education but also primary education.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, taking into account that Hadrian's Wall is a UNESCO world heritage site, are the Government considering spending a great deal more on archaeological surveys of the wall and on preserving it from the ravages of tourism and neglect? A number of the outposts north of Hadrian's Wall are on the English Heritage at-risk register at present.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Kingdom is seeking a place on the world heritage committee which, as the noble Lord states, does valuable work in assessing which sites should be on the world heritage list. The committee has also taken important steps to achieve a more balanced list by encouraging representation of sites in areas of the world which are poorly represented. Rejoining the committee would be a positive affirmation of our manifesto commitment to play a fuller part in UNESCO's activities. If I can give the noble Lord further information, I shall write to him.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government are prepared to contribute around £11 million a year to UNESCO, yet—despite the noble Baroness's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the answer of the Secretary of State on 10th November saying that it would occur "shortly"—there are still no plans to finalise the funding of the national commission secretariat?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I return to the original Answer to my noble friend Lord Judd in which I said clearly that there is a commitment to establishing the commission. However, we want to get it right. We want to have a commission which is cost effective. We have

543
consulted across government. We have also consulted with interested organisations and have received from them various indications of the kind of commission they would like to see. At the end of January this year, we wrote to a number of organisations, including the UK UNESCO forum, setting out our proposals with respect to the establishment of a commission. We intend to have a meeting on 25th February which will take us further. There have been no delays; we are interested in getting this right.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country has probably the richest network of non-governmental organisations in the world? Will the national commission be structured to take advantage of that? In particular, will it play a part in channelling this country's participation in the United Nations Culture of Peace programme in the year 2000?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble and learned friend that it is our intention to tap into our existing NGO networks. That is a key part of the proposals contained in our document relating to the establishment of a national commission. We hope to establish a small commission which will have task groups investigating important issues. Linked to the commission will be a separate education committee, given that we focus so much on education.
As regards the Culture of Peace programme, clearly, conflict resolution and the development of peace processes form a core part of our agenda. We want the national commission involved in those issues too.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of widespread suspicion that the long delay in this matter is not so much to do with a desire to get it right as to do with a lack of enthusiasm? Given what she has said today, can one firmly reject those suspicions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords. I hope that I have made clear that the Government are committed to UNESCO. We rejoined UNESCO within six weeks of coming into power and the delay, if there has been a delay, has been in order to ensure that we consult as widely as possible and get it right.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: India and Pakistan
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations are being made to the governments of India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty as it stands and
544
without delay. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated our concerns last month to both the Indian national security adviser, Barjesh Mishra, on 20th January and to the Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, on 4th February. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, restated the same concern to the Pakistani Minister of State, Siddique Kanju, in Islamabad on 8th February.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords. I am grateful for that Answer. I understand that the Indian Foreign Secretary has indicated that India would not wish to hold up the coming into force of the treaty. In view of the fact that neither Russia nor the United States has so far ratified the treaty, and neither India nor Pakistan has so far signed it, does the Minister believe that the treaty is likely to come into force before time runs out in September?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we continue to urge all states to ratify the treaty, in particular those 44 named states which have a nuclear capability and whose ratification is essential for the treaty to enter into force. Fifteen of the 44 have ratified so far and 26 have signed. Three have not even signed: they are India, Pakistan and North Korea. The UK and France were the first of the nuclear weapon states to ratify in April 1998.
The noble Baroness referred to September 1999. As provided for in the treaty, a conference will be held in September 1999 to consider how to expedite entry into force. It was always envisaged that that conference would be to review and to see how the treaty could be pushed forward.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that India is developing Prethvi II the long range missile which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads and that Pakistan will follow, as it did in respect of the nuclear tests? Does she agree that if the issue of Kashmir were solved in accordance with United Nations resolutions both countries could spend money on education, health and the eradication of poverty rather than wasting it on a nuclear arsenal?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. Of course, it is clear that the key to resolving conflict in the sub-continent is for there to be direct talks between India and Pakistan on all issues of possible conflict, which should include Kashmir. That is the best route for the avoidance of a costly and dangerous arms race in south Asia.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the G8, encouraged by the United States, about to dilute its principal position on economic loan restrictions? If that is the case, what message does that send to neo-region states which are criticised for developing a nuclear capability for civilian benefit only?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the restrictions imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are very much in place and

545
remain in place. We have never criticised states whose nuclear programmes are clearly intended for civilian purposes only.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what discussions have taken place between Britain and the rest of the Security Council members about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with reference to India and Pakistan? Will the Minister also indicate whether it is in the interests either of India or Pakistan for unilateral or multi-lateral sanctions to be continued against those countries? Such action gives the impression of coercion rather than willingness to be able to join such a treaty.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, sanctions were imposed to express international dismay and unhappiness at the nuclear tests carried out by both India and Pakistan in the summer of last year. As regards further discussion with other members of the Security Council and India, the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, has now conducted eight rounds of talks with the Indian and Pakistani Governments on non-proliferation and regional security issues. The latest round was held in late January, during Mr. Talbot's visits to New Delhi and Islamabad. The Russian Prime Minister, Yevgeniy Primakov, visited New Delhi in December. The Russian Government have told us that he too urged India to sign the CTBT. France and China have also had recent bilateral contacts with the Indian and Pakistani Governments and I have indicated the British contacts with both the Indian and the Pakistani Governments.
Lord Paul: My Lords, coming from the sub-continent, I would say that both India and Pakistan are peace-loving and responsible members of the world community. I have no doubt that they want to show regard for the world community. Will the Minister make sure that the sensitiveness of their national pride is kept in mind during negotiations on the CTBT?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, Britain has a long and close relationship with both countries. Your Lordships can be assured that we will certainly keep firmly in mind all the points raised by my noble friend.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, may I ask—
Noble Lords: Next Question

Roadside Drug Tests for Drivers
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the law and current technology provide adequately for police to test drivers at the roadside for drugs in quantities that might make them unfit to drive.
The Minister of Stale, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, under road traffic law the police have strong powers to require motorists to provide specimens for laboratory analysis where they suspect that they are unfit to drive through drugs. The deployment of roadside screening technology for drugs would require a change to primary legislation. We are keeping the legislation and technology under review
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. 1 understand that trials on equipment are being carried out in selected areas of the country. When is it likely that the equivalent of a breathalyser will be in general use to detect both illegal substances and drugs that are prescribed for medical reasons? Will the Minister confirm that soft drugs, such as cannabis, have dangerous effects on driving ability?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall, a three-year study was set up in October 1996. Therefore, it will finish its work in October of this year. We agree that there is a need for a roadside screening device of the sort to which the noble Lord referred. The difficulty is that the breathalyser focuses on one drug only—namely, alcohol—whereas, as the noble Lord rightly indicated, a variety of drugs are sometimes taken by those breaking the law. Cannabis is regularly found. It has been found in 16 per cent. of those tested so far. We need to keep this new area of technology and legislation very much in mind.
Lord Geddes: My Lords—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that in too many cases people are stopped by the police in relation to drink and drugs on the pretext that an offence has been committed. Rather than engage in that sort of pretext, would it not be better for random testing to be introduced?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the police have sufficient powers to stop motorists. One has to strike a balance between infuriating the law-abiding and catching those who break the law. The police have substantial powers which can be used legitimately for the protection of the public and the prevention of that type of crime.
Lord Geddes: My Lords—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several years ago the All-Party Drugs Misuse Committee was shown equipment that could be used to test drugs at the roadside. The equipment was inside what looked like a briefcase. Is the Minister also aware that there is some very efficient equipment for testing diabetics? That equipment simply takes a sample of blood. With the scourge of drug-abuse, surely it is time that steps in this direction, including legislation, were taken quickly. It is a terrible problem for many people.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have tested two devices. They can be used on either sweat or saliva at

547
the roadside. However, there are difficulties because one is not screening for just one drug. There are prescribed drugs and unlawful drugs. We recognise that this is an important area of the law and that is why we believe that we should wait for the conclusion of the study which will be in October of this year.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords—
Lord Geddes: My Lords, this side! Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that a report of some 12 months ago by the Select Committee on the European Communities into what I broadly call the drink-drive regulations looked, at some depth, into the problem of drug-abuse and incapacitated drivers? I recommend that that is read by Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in the subject.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a valuable publication. My noble friend Lady Hayman presented the preliminary outcome of the study in February last year. Of 690 fatalities, which included 284 who had been driving, 16 per cent. had cannabis in the blood. However, the fact remains that alcohol was the major contributor at 34 per cent. I offer that as a perspective.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the exchanges this afternoon provide compelling evidence not to legalise cannabis because of the uncertainty of technology?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Home Office policy has been made perfectly plain by Jack Straw on many occasions. It is to the effect that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister undertake that as soon as these highly desirable devices become available, appropriate legislative changes will be proposed promptly so that they can be put into use?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question, primary legislation would be needed. However, primary legislation and the time associated with it is not in my gift. A number of steps are being taken at the moment. There is a good deal to be said about the Strathclyde police force. That force has sent two sergeants to the United States to see what technology is available there and we have interesting lessons to learn from that.

"Decommissioning": Definition
2.58 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will define "decommissioning" as referred to in the April 1998 Belfast agreement (Cm 3883).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, "decommissioning" is the destruction of arms and explosives or their transfer, depositing or collection for subsequent destruction, in accordance with the decommissioning scheme made under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, or in accordance with regulations and arrangements made pursuant to them by the Republic of Ireland's Decommissioning Act 1997.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Sinn Fein/IRA has repeatedly made it clear that it has no intention, and never has had any intention, of giving up its weapons and ammunition and that "decommissioning" to it means not using those weapons and ammunition? Does the Minister further agree that Sinn Fein/IRA intends to retain its arsenal so that, if it so chooses, it can recommission that arsenal and start to use it again? Does not that have significant implications for any possible recommendation by the Patten Commission for the future of the RUC? Frankly, would it not be better if we all stopped misleading ourselves by thinking of a peace process and recognised that whether even the cease-fire is intact is questionable?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Government would certainly not agree that we should question the existence of the peace process. The peace process has represented enormous progress for the people of Northern Ireland, supported by the majority of people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Republic. Every party that supported the Good Friday agreement is under an obligation to decommission. That includes Sinn Fein as well as the other parties associated with paramilitary organisations. The Government expect all parties to go along with the agreement and to decommission. The issue is not whether they decommission, but when. I am not totally clear about the relationship of the noble Lord's Question to the Patten Commission. I believe that the commission will report towards the middle of the year. The Government will have to consider how to give effect to any recommendations that come from it.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, how is the Minister prepared to deal with the view of Sinn Fein/IRA which equates its position with that of the RUC and the British Army, which are the representatives of a democratic state? Is the Minister prepared to say that he will stand by the rules that are given to the instruments of a democratic state and that he will not equate them with Sinn Fein/IRA?
Lord Dubs: Yes, my Lords. The Government certainly do not equate the RUC, the Army or other security forces with paramilitary organisations or the political parties associated with them. That is why I have consistently spoken about paramilitary organisations and their obligation to decommission their weapons, as have the Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the wording of this Question give the Minister sympathy with the

549
undergraduate who began an entry for a prize with the following words, "I will not define my terms. I do not like playing with marked cards"?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not totally sure of the exact point that the noble Earl is making, but, if he is being helpful, I am most grateful.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that only last week 81 per cent. of the people polled in Northern Ireland, right across both communities, demanded the decommissioning of weapons and that on Sunday morning when they read in the press that the Taoiseach of the Republic was demanding exactly the same thing, there was a great sigh of relief, only for that to be demolished within two hours when it appears that the Taoiseach came under tremendous pressure and then began to qualify what he had said in the interview? Does my noble friend recall, as I do vividly, all the circumstances that brought about the downfall of the Sunningdale agreement? Does not my noble friend recognise that a decided pattern is now emerging? Does my noble friend accept that the decommissioning issue could be satisfied by, for example, the handing in of Semtex—Semtex is offensive—even without the handing in of guns and that that would be a gesture to the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland? Unless the decommissioning issue is satisfactorily resolved, the whole peace process could be brought tumbling to the ground.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that point. As I said earlier, it is the Government's view that decommissioning must happen, and the only question is when. It is clear that a start to decommissioning would do more to create confidence between the communities than would any other single step. That is why we are urging all the paramilitary organisations to get on with it and to do it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, can the Minister confirm that the Taoiseach appears to have retracted his retraction and now seems, once again, to believe that it would be extremely unwise, to put it mildly, to encourage members of Sinn Fein/IRA to be members of the new executive unless decommissioning had started? If that is the Taoiseach's view once again, is it also the Government's view?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Taoiseach made an important statement urging the various paramilitary organisations to get on with decommissioning. I do not think that it would be particularly helpful if I tried to comment on the other statements made by the Taoiseach; I might add confusion. The Taoiseach and the Irish Government can perfectly well explain their position—and have done so consistently. The Government's view is that decommissioning must happen. We urge all the parties to get on with it. We have never said that it was a precondition—it is not,
550
under the Good Friday agreement—but in terms of building confidence, it is enormously important that decommissioning begins.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the decommissioning process must be complete in two years. Has the independent commission on decommissioning made any report to the Government on the progress of the decommissioning of illegal arms, as per the Good Friday agreement? We are now 10 months into a two-year process, so the report must be due soon.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not aware of any formal report, but the decommissioning commission has had meetings with those individuals nominated by the various parties and organisations to liaise with it. That process is continuing.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in view of the Minister's definition of the word "decommissioning"—that it involves the destruction of weapons and arsenals—does he not agree that the time has come to use the word "destruction" rather than "decommissioning"?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think that the words mean the same. The noble Lord will recall that when the LVF recently decommissioned some of its weapons, pictures on television showed those weapons being destroyed in, I believe, an engineering workshop. We use the word "decommissioning" because that is the word in the Good Friday agreement and in our legislation.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Donoughue will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the safety of genetically modified foods.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for that statement. However, may I ask him to cast his mind forward to the business for next week? As the noble Lord and the House are aware, on Monday we are to debate the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the White Paper on the Royal Commission and reform of this House. When I last looked at the list of speakers just before lunch it contained some 75 names and I think that it is now somewhat longer. I am sure that most noble Lords would agree that it would be regrettable if we debated such an important Motion very late into the night. Of those 75 noble Lords, who represent all sides of the House, I believe that about one third are Privy Counsellors. It is a very impressive list of speakers. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree now to offer the House—I think that this is what the

551
House would like—an extra day for debating that important Motion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the number of speakers on such lists tends to increase after lunch. I am aware of the length and the quality of that list of speakers, which now numbers 79. I am also aware that an official request has today been received from around the House for a second day of debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House which is currently scheduled for Monday. I shall need time to reflect on that request and to consider carefully the other pressures on the time of your Lordships' House and on those who wish to participate in debates. I am sure that discussions can proceed within the usual channels and in the usual way. I undertake to ensure that the House receives an answer to those requests, one way or the other, after Question Time tomorrow.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. Will he recognise that there are many others in the House who take the view that it is essential to have a second day for this debate? With great respect to him, it would be absurd for us to attempt to have a one-day debate when in fact 79 people have already put down their names and that almost certainly a great many more will do so before the end of the week.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 13 [Advice and assistance]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 9, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are grouped with others. Their purpose is to remove from the Bill the provisions which grant to the legal services commission the ability to provide advice, assistance and representation through salaried lawyers in the commission's own employment within the criminal defence service. I find it somewhat ironic that after a full day on Report on the community legal service in which the virtues of competition, conditional fee agreements, exclusive contracted services, lawyers in civil actions taking a risk like any other business—all the virtues of privatisation—were lauded to the skies, we now turn, in considering the criminal defence service, to the virtues of nationalisation—replacing the independence of individual lawyers chosen by the client in competition with others and answerable only to the
552
client and to the court—with a salaried employee of the state assigned to defend a person in jeopardy of his liberty.
On the third day of the Committee stage we spent two hours discussing the matter in terms of high principle—not least in the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. I myself relied on the stirring words of the Chief Justice of Australia, the honourable Sir Gerard Brennan. The reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was: first, that it was an insult to the ethics of a group of people—which is not yet in existence—to assert that they could not be independent; secondly, that the choice between the independent practitioner and the salaried employee will be maintained; thirdly, that there might be a gap in the provision which a salaried defender service could fill; and, finally, that, having regard to his budget, salaried defenders might afford a useful benchmark against private practitioners in terms of quality and cost—that is to say, that his proposals will pull down the cost of defence services. In none of those matters referred to by the noble and learned Lord do I find the argument of principle fully addressed. We spent some two hours on that topic.
I now turn to the practical aspects of the proposal to see whether it will work. Article 6 the European convention guarantees the right to a fair trial in both civil and criminal proceedings. The concept of a fair trial contains many elements. At the core is the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Also contained in Article 6 is the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance, and to call witnesses.
However, as was said by the Supreme Court of the United States, mere access to the courthouse doors does not by itself assure the proper functioning of the adversary process. That court said that a criminal trial is fundamentally unfair if the state proceeds against a defendant without making certain that he has access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defence. Thus the Supreme Court has often reaffirmed that fundamental fairness entitles legally aided defendants to an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system. To implement this principle the Supreme Court has focused on identifying the basic tools of an adequate defence or appeal and has required that such tools be provided to those defendants who cannot afford to pay for them.
The important lesson that one learns from the Supreme Court of the United States is that a state defence service in this country must provide not merely the advocate to appear in court but also the back-up team. The issue that has to be addressed is the cost to the public purse of the administration and the expense of the whole team. At present, wherever in the country a person is arrested there is available in every police station a solicitor of his own choosing to advise him. That solicitor will have his own back-up staff of legal executives and secretarial and other assistance in his own office. He will also have the physical resources to carry out the necessary investigations, the interviewing

553
of witnesses, the instruction of experts—pathologists, psychiatrists, fingerprint experts and scientists specialising in fibre evidence or DNA and so forth. He must obtain the sanction of the court before he can incur such expense, whether from the court itself, the administrative staff or the Crown Court in a serious case. The independent solicitor, if he so desires, has the choice of independent counsel to act for his client in an appropriate case. He can match the level and breadth of experience of the advocate to the case before him.
A nationalised defence service will require the setting up of a central administrative office and regional offices. If the footprint of that service is to extend to the whole of England and Wales and is to cover every police station where interrogation may take place; every magistrates' court and Crown Court, clearly those regional offices of the state defence service will be numerous. If the CPS is any guide, it will require an office for each Crown Court area with the equivalent of the proposed CPS district attorney to oversee the region.
I always return to my home territory of North Wales in order to see how things work in a rural area. In North Wales the CPS employs a back-up team of about 1.5 personnel for every qualified advocate. The whole of the investigative arm of the CPS is covered by the North Wales police. They not only provide the witnesses, but they also ensure that they get to court. I expect that a state criminal defence service will require a ratio of three staff to one advocate in order to provide a comprehensive service.
Is it to be supposed for a moment that with this nationwide and expensive framework in place, with a central administrative office, regional and Crown Court offices, an accused person will for long be able to say "No, I do not want that service. I want my own solicitor to act"? If choice is permitted to continue, then the investment of so much national resources in the criminal defence service in providing the back-up team and the support staff is an enormous commercial gamble. If all defendants choose not to use the state defence service it will have nothing to do and the whole framework will be useless.
What about the workload of such a service? The American Bar Association states in Standards for Criminal Justice published in 1980,
"Neither defender organizations nor assigned counsel should accept workloads that, by reason of their excessive size, interfere with the rendering of quality representation or lead to the breach of professional obligations. Whenever defender organizations or assigned counsel determine, in the exercise of their best professional judgment, that the acceptance of additional cases or continued representation in previously accepted cases will lead to the furnishing of representation lacking in quality or to the breach of professional obligations, the defender organizations or assigned counsel must take such steps as may be appropriate to reduce their pending or projected workloads".
The American Bar Association has said that there can be no overloading of a criminal defence service and that only an appropriate amount of work can be undertaken. If the criminal defence service is like the CPS in this country, it will be a unionised body with fixed hours (nine to five), with a salaried employee who, unlike the independent barrister or solicitor, has no need to move on to the next case to improve his own income. He will
554
be entitled—and no doubt will do so—to prepare his cases not in the evenings or at weekends, as we all do, but during days set aside out of court. In addition, he will require time for training and for updating, time that independent practitioners take out of their daily routine.
The first casualty of such a system in order to save costs will be independent specialist reports. It is so tempting and attractive to ask, "If the pathologist who is instructed by the police comes to a professional conclusion and he is a witness who is not there as a party to the cause but to assist the court, why should the defence have a pathologist? Why should there he more than one scientist or one psychiatrist or one expert in finger printing or in DNA?" Yet when one considers the history of miscarriages of justice in this country, one sees it is precisely in those areas that miscarriages arise due to scientific inadequacies. One thinks of the Judith Ward case and the Birmingham Six case. I know of a man who was imprisoned for 14 years clue to a miscarriage of justice when it was ultimately discovered that the scientist who had been responsible for his conviction had faked his findings.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred to the report of Messrs. McConville and Mirsky in 1980 and queried how far things had changed since then in the United States. The Department of Justice in the United States produced reports in 1986 which covered 777 defender programmes in all of the 50 states of the Union and involved public defender systems, contract lawyers and assigned counsel. Revealingly, one county in Arizona which awarded contracts to the lowest bidder was found to violate the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution because it did not take into account the time an attorney spent in representing his clients.
Importantly, the contract system in Arizona did not provide for support costs such as investigators. It did not consider the competence or experience level of attorneys bidding on contracts, nor did it consider the complexity or seriousness of the cases being bid on. The slate simply let out contracts to the lowest kidder. The changes in the criminal justice system in the United States have now caused the Department of Justice to undertake an entirely new comprehensive national survey of indigent defence systems in order to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of services offered. One of the unsolved problems is the question of co-defendants whose interests collide; for example, where one seeks to do a deal and claim immunity in return for giving evidence against another. It simply is not possible for the same organisation to act for both defendants. No such research, consideration or consultation backs these proposals.
In the White Paper The Machinery of Justice there is reference to a single study that was carried out by an individual in 1997. There is nothing more. In my view these proposals are simply pulled out of the air as a good, money-saving wheeze. Much is made of the cost of defence legal aid. It is said that 1 per cent. takes 40 per cent. of the criminal legal aid funds in the Crown Court. That is not surprising; it is the complex, lengthy and serious cases which consume the largest resources of skill, both in advocacy and particularly in expert

555
support services. In fact the Bar Council has agreed in most cases to accept graduated fees. That system is working well, although its effects have not been evaluated. But now these proposals involve the costs of a nationwide administrative organisation, coupled with complete uncertainty as to the extent to which its services will be chosen by the consumer—the arrested, accused defendant. Is that value for money? I do not think so. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I disagree with the fundamental premise of the noble Lord's argument which has just been adduced, and I have said so before. In providing a complementary service through the private side of the profession, I believe that one should encourage the provision of a salaried service. Moreover, I think that the noble Lord grossly exaggerated the draconian effects that the introduction of such a service would have. In fact, I do not believe that would be the case at all. I believe that it could be an important process in the development of someone's professional career. I do not believe that the experience in Arizona necessarily disqualifies the introduction of this proposition in this country.
It is, with respect, something of a slur on those engaged in the Crown Prosecution Service, for example, to imply—this was not said expressly—that they will not devote themselves assiduously to engaging in the task that is before them. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they are simply a nine-to-five operation. There is a considerable measure of pride in the work that they do, even if perhaps they are not rewarded for going outside the usual hours of service that are expected of them, just as in the private side of the profession lawyers take pride in their work and they are not necessarily compensated for every minute that they are engaged in the work that they undertake.
When we addressed these issues at the Committee stage my noble and learned friend said that he had no intention of providing the majority of services through the salaried service. That is an assurance that the House should welcome, as indeed it should welcome the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend that would certainly remove the suggestion that there would be some compelling reason for an individual to have to use a member of the salaried service. That is how I understand the position although my noble and learned friend will, of course, summarise the argument for himself. As I understand it, that should be a satisfactory assurance for the House.
In approaching this issue, I think it is important to ensure that the service is provided with sufficient resources to protect the rights of the individual. There is no suggestion that that would not be the case, although it is again one of the arguments that is implied by the noble Lord. It is important in this context to ensure that there is a greater parity of representation—there cannot be complete parity of representation—between the defence and the prosecution. I urge the noble Lord not to pursue this argument because, as I have indicated, I think it could be interpreted unfortunately by those
556
who are currently engaged in the prosecution service and who, by and large—of course, mistakes are made—do their work well.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, not having taken part in the Committee stage, one of the disciplines that one imposes upon oneself is that one is required to read it. Having done so, I am happy to say that I do not propose to repeat the arguments so eloquently made by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Thomas, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, against the whole principle of the salaried defender. Having read those speeches one is in the happy position of being in the situation of the third member of the Court of Appeal who is able to say, "I agree and have nothing—or, in this case, little—to add".
I wish to ask one or two questions. I make it clear that I align myself with those who are opposed in principle to this proposal. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to accept at the end of one of his speeches that there was a distinction in principle between those who favoured a salaried defence service and those who did not. I make it clear that I put myself with those who are opposed to a salaried defence or salaried prosecution service. One of the great strengths of the English criminal Bars is that lawyers both defend and prosecute. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a salaried defence and prosecution service is inevitably bound in the long run to harm the independence of those services.
What is the purpose, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sees it at this time, of the criminal public defender? In particular, what is the need for the introduction so quickly in the Bill? On any view, it would have been accepted by all sides of the House that we are proposing a major, fundamental change in criminal representation in this country. We know that it first saw the light of day on the face of the Bill without any form of prior consultation with the Law Society or the Bar Council. What is the hurry for its implementation?
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made it clear that he did not envisage that it would be greatly used. He said:
"I stress that it is not our intention that salaried defenders should supplant the independent Bar or, indeed, the solicitors' profession. That will never happen. We see value in the commission having power to introduce into the system a salaried element, subject to appropriate ethical safeguards. But it will always be a mixed system in which the salaried element will by far be the smaller part".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 916.]
What part does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor envisage the salaried defender will play? What is the salaried defender able to provide which the duty solicitor system at the moment cannot adequately provide? I am driven to the conclusion that the purpose must be, and can only be, the intention to try and save money. Let me make it clear that I fully accept the importance of that aim; I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said on many occasions; namely, that one must be concerned about the rapidly increasing costs of criminal legal aid. Where I part company from him is in the criticism that he goes on to make of my colleagues at the criminal Bar

557
without regard to the fact that almost all of those fees come through graduated fees agreed with his department.
I accept that there is a concern about the rapid increase in the cost of criminal legal aid; I accept that we should have value for money. But value for money is not the same thing as saying, "Let us provide the defence as cheaply as we possibly can". It seems to me that the only intention behind the creation, out of the blue, of the public defender—without adequate explanation of his role; without adequate consultation about the effect that it will have on the future of the legal profession in this country—is merely a demand to see how cheaply you can get the service done. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply to the debate, he will explain how he envisages that role, and why he believes it is necessary to bring it in now rather than in the course of separate legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, suggested.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, those parts of Clauses 13 and 14 to which these amendments relate continue to trouble many of us who practice at the Bar, some of whom are not able to be in their places today, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Scotland and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept that that is not because our brains have atrophied into a backward-looking trade union mindset as a result of a surfeit of feather-bedding and rich pickings from the regal legal aid system—to use phrases used earlier at Committee stage—but rather because we have worked, with not a little pride, under a system which was largely shaped by those great reforming Labour Lord Chancellor's, the late Lord Gardiner and Lord Elwyn-Jones. Many of us are deeply fearful that these particular proposals, whatever the financial necessities that drive them, will result in a system which serves the public less well in the future.
Salaried defenders are not currently necessary. At present there are ample independent practitioners of the requisite skill ready and willing to carry out the workload under legal aid. I accept that that could change after the passage of the Bill. Firms of solicitors which currently carry out an element of legal aid work—often out of public spirit and at some commercial disadvantage to themselves—may no longer be prepared to do so once it becomes necessary for them to apply for franchises. In those circumstances, sadly, some areas could well find that there are insufficient legal aid practitioners available, particularly in specialist fields. But if and when such a situation arises, that surely would be the time for a proper debate based on actual need for these provisions, followed possibly by legislation to meet that need.
The underlying principle that causes many of us great concern continues—and continues despite the assurances which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already given. The state which makes the accusation and conducts the prosecution must neither control the defence nor appear to do so. The independent defender is the main safeguard which ensures that that does not happen. The public is rightly
558
concerned about miscarriages of justice. Time and time again it has been independent practitioners—both solicitors and barristers—who, long after they have ceased to be paid to represent an accused, have continued to work and campaign at their own expense to right such wrongs, sometimes over many years.
Accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said about those who currently work within the Crown Prosecution Service, many of us worry whether the salaried defender will be permitted to devote the time of his employers to pursuing what were sometimes wrongly seen by others as lost causes.
I cannot support the principle behind this part of the Bill, quite simply because I do not think that it will improve access to justice; rather the reverse. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor understands the strength of feeling and, above all, the dismay which is widespread in my branch of the profession and beyond about these particular aspects of the Bill.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also understand that I and others are grateful to him for giving some way, and going some way, to meet concerns about the lack of choice for an accused which was raised by all sides of the House in Committee stage. In particular, Amendment No. 111—to which we will come soon—is helpful, if partial, reassurance. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give a rather fuller reassurance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House—namely, that every accused person will, unless it is wholly impractical, be permitted to choose whether to trust his defence to an independent practitioner rather than to a salaried defender allotted to him. Unless an accused person can do so, I am fearful that the role of the independent defender will be steadily undermined, and the underlying principle of criminal legal aid—that the very poorest should also have access to the very best—will, over time, become a thing of the past.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, one of the problems about the public defender is that, this being an Access to Justice Bill, all those who speak are liable to be lawyers who are inevitably involved in the matter. That makes it very difficult for those who are riot lawyers to separate the wheat from the chaff. Because of the way the Lord Chancellor has replied to criticisms from his fellow lawyers—it has come to the fact, as the noble Baroness has just said, that any argument put forward is seen as special pleading—one has to start one's observations by showing that that is not one's attitude.
I am bound to point out to the noble and learned Lord that when, more than 20 years ago, my noble friend Lord Wigoder and I formed the Criminal Bar Association we did so in order to create a radical reforming body within criminal practitioners. That association continues and is flourishing. Indeed, I think I can say without exaggeration that it has played an influential part in all reforms to the criminal law in the past 20 years. My noble friend Lord Phillips has done

559
very much the same on the side of the solicitors' branch. I really do think that we on these Benches need no lessons on reforming zeal in relation to the criminal law.
I should like to bring this matter nearer home. Anyone and any Member of this House may find himself in a police station. He may kill someone with his car. He may be wrongly identified in a public lavatory or at a demonstration. He may carry goods out of a shop and be charged with stealing. There are a hundred other ways in which any member of the public may find himself in a police station. When he gets there the routine is that he will be put in a cell, to await his production before the duty sergeant, in order to cool off or possibly to make him more amenable to making a statement.
What does that person want when he is in that cell, incommunicado, alone, frightened or indignant? He wants someone from outside; someone who will be on his side, with time to listen, to act, to restore his personal liberty and personal self-respect, and to understand his predicament. He does not want a friendly WPC, or a probation officer, or a welfare officer. He wants someone from outside. In other words, he wants an independent person, an independent lawyer. When he is awaiting trial he wants someone—this was referred to in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—who is prepared to go the extra mile. In saying that, the noble Baroness was disparagingly accused of casting herself in a heroic role. It has nothing to do with heroism. It happens to be the essence of advocacy. Advocacy is not oratory, as many lawyers find in this and in another place. That is the essence of advocacy; to pursue someone's case, however long, however boring and however difficult it may be, and to establish his innocence or the probability of his innocence.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, made a moderate and most thoughtful speech about this matter. As a non-lawyer, she felt that the part-time salaried advocate could provide a benchmark to measure the quality and cost-effectiveness of the advocate. I would say to the noble Baroness and to other Members of the House who think that there is something in that suggestion that it is simply not like that. Would the noble Baroness send a part-time surgeon into the operating theatre to monitor and see how the work was being done? Would she send a part-time pilot onto the flight deck to see whether the pilot's work was being done properly? Of course, any fool can do this job more cheaply, spend less time on it and cut every corner, but who is measuring the quality assurance; who is the master in that situation? It is the defendant who gives the instructions, but is the master going to be the Treasury, or the CDS or the LSC?
When it comes to trial, what does the person want when facing up to the accusation? Let us suppose that the police have put up a false case. Let us suppose that they have put in a false confession. Let us suppose that they have had a false identification or have planted drugs in the person's car, as, alas, happens only too often. What the defendant wants is, first, an independent judge; secondly, a jury randomly selected; thirdly, a fair and detached prosecutor; and, lastly, a fiercely independent advocate. All those players can be
560
inefficient and incompetent, as any other professional person can be, but they form the indispensable structure which is there to resist the huge weight of authority—the lies, the corruption, the incompetence, the zealotry or even the simple human error of a person's accusers.
Governments have always sought to tamper with this structure—these awkward entities. It is said that judges are self-important and seek to control politicians. It is said that juries can be perverse, expensive and slow and that people's ability to go before a jury should be reduced in order to save money. It is said that juries are not intelligent enough to try difficult cases. In this House it is our job to be vigilant, to perceive the dangers that lie ahead and to stop the Executive when it goes too far. When a Minister, given powers, assures noble Lords that they will not be used, the warning bells ring around the Chamber and, I may say, have always done so in my time in this House.
This part-time lawyer will only fill in gaps and will never do difficult cases. Who is he? We have never been told. Where will his desk be? We have never been told. What are his job prospects? We have never been told. What will his experience be? We have never been told. A salaried defender service can be brought into existence, as the noble and learned Lord agreed, under this Bill. That is the true situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out, the frank wording in paragraph 99 of the Explanatory Notes says precisely that:
"The intention is that, in time, the Commission will provide all, or nearly all, representation exclusively through contracted or salaried defenders, whom it will require to meet defined quality standards".
There you have it. I ask the House: is that what the public wants; is that what the accused person wants? Can we imagine any independent judiciary drawn from the Crown Prosecution Service and the criminal defence service? One has only to ask that question to see the mischief which could come about.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I well remember during my many years of doing criminal work as a solicitor that many stipendiary magistrates were drawn almost exclusively from that class of barrister who practised as a prosecutor in criminal cases. The same applied to many judges in what used to be the Quarter Sessions and is now the Crown Court. What is the difference?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the barrister who prosecutes. Every barrister can prosecute or defend and has a practice which may do more prosecuting or more defending. Every barrister to whom the noble Lord referred was a free member of the Bar who could take briefs from any area he wished. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that when Treasury counsel are prosecuting at the Central Criminal Court they may leave that area, take on other work and become judges or defending barristers, whereas someone who is employed in a government office could never be in that situation.
The advocate is repeatedly referred to as the "quality assured provider", the "contactual provider" or the "salaried defender". No longer will we refer to the noble

561
and learned Lord, Lord Falconer QC; it will be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer QAP, or some other such phrase.
That is the language of bureaucracy, of the Civil Service, of control, of intellectual isolation; it is a world of codes and guidelines, those fig-leaves of control. I must tell the Lord Chancellor that from my simple inquiries at the Criminal Bar the young men and women feel at this time that those at the top of the profession are losing touch with those at the coal-face. As has already been pointed out, this idea was inserted into the Bill without any consultation with either branch of the profession or indeed with the public. I suggest that it is a dangerous concept and should be removed from the Bill.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, hopes that any non-lawyer can separate the wheat from the chaff. As that non-lawyer I hope that I do not disappoint him.
First, I question the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that a salaried defender service would somehow be a part-time service. He colourfully illustrated his point asking whether 1, as a non-lawyer, would want a part-time pilot on the flight deck. As a current Member of the European Parliament who travels a great deal by air, I certainly would not want a part-time pilot on the flight deck, and I would not be defending a salaried defender service if I felt that that was an accurate way of describing it.
I support the arguments put so clearly by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. These amendments reflect an unnecessary anxiety in parts of your Lordships' House about the prospects of salaried defenders. As far as I can see, the concern is based on rather emotive assumptions and some, though not all, questionable anecdotal information about a salaried defender service totally lacking in independence and overflowing with second-rate practitioners. Yet, from what we know of experience around the world, the picture of the quality of salaried defenders is quite mixed with some countries coming off much better than others. Recent 1997–98 studies referred to in the White Paper are attached to the Bill.
But even that mixed picture does not need to reflect our own proposed new scheme which, from the start, will be based on exacting quality control. Anxiety is also based on good old-fashioned resistance to change which, in some ways, is to be expected. Change is never easy, particularly where traditions and ways of working have a long and distinguished pedigree. But such resistance is no real justification for not even contemplating the introduction of a choice between salaried defenders and private practitioners. The Lord Chancellor made it perfectly plain on several occasions during the passage of this Bill that it is not calling for a summary take-over by a salaried defenders' service. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, it is seeking a complementary competitive choice for clients.
There are opportunities here that should not be missed when we contemplate the prospect of our home-grown salaried defenders; opportunities of greater career
562
flexibility within the profession and opportunities of establishing—I repeat—quality bench-marking for the profession. There are also opportunities for a salaried defenders' service to be a useful and invigorating spur to competition within the profession and an opportunity to fill current gaps in access to and availability of practitioners nationwide. As I see them, the opportunities far outweigh the concerns raised in response to this part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the concern is not one that manifests itself purely in your Lordships' House. It is a concern that manifests itself in both branches of the profession and in particular on the circuits throughout the country. It is not a question of resistance to change; it is a question of the quality of the service and maintaining that quality so that, as has been put so eloquently—I shall not repeat it—the citizen who is stuck in a police cell has at least the opportunity to choose someone who is independent to look after him.
It is said that that type of independent representation will not be excluded. It may not be excluded by statute, but if we ride two systems in tandem, it may well be the case—as it is genuinely feared to be—that the duty solicitors will not be available to provide the service or the choice for the man in the cell.
I do not understand what is meant by the phrase, "quality bench-marking for the profession". Certainly the Bar maintains its quality in its own way, and has done so with conspicuous success. From the start of one's time in the circuit one learns the ropes through the discipline that is imposed by the head of chambers and the advice and discipline imposed by the judges and by the general traditions under which we operate. I do riot understand how that can conceivably be applied to people who work under contract. Contracted men are subject possibly to union rules, to government control, to regulation by a commission, or to retirement, They are subject to this and subject to that, but they are never free independent lawyers. I support this amendment. I can see no justification for the introduction of a system of state defenders.
4 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, it is important before we conclude this debate to look at exactly what these amendments seek to achieve. Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment No. 103 do no less and no more than seek to remove altogether the Criminal Defence Service. Indeed, the noble Lord even seeks, in Amendment No. 97, to remove any right of the Criminal Defence Service to give advice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that is not the purpose of the amendments. They relate to people who are employed, as the noble Lord will see if he reads them a little more closely.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I can only go by the form of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, and he specifically excludes the provision of advice as well as assistance in his Amendment No. 97.

563
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not yet spoken to Amendment No. 102. That is a more moderate amendment. If I understand it correctly, it seeks to remove the operation of the Criminal Defence Service in the higher courts.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendment No. 102 has nothing to do with me. My amendment is Amendment No. 103, which does not seek to remove the Criminal Defence Service. It simply seeks to limit its representational powers to magistrates' courts.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. My reference is to Amendment No. 103, which effectively seeks to remove representation by the Criminal Defence Service in the higher courts—which is of course a more moderate amendment.
There have been some very good speeches so far in this debate. I always listen with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and I stood almost alone among the great political parties in debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill in our firm opposition to mandatory sentencing and other matters. Similarly, in debates in this House, particularly concerning penal and social affairs, I am almost always in entire agreement with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I assure her that I (I do not speak for other Members of the House) do not consider that she is of addled mind, that she is a backwards looking lady or a feather-bedder, to refer to the three expressions that she used in her remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, was therefore right to identify one of the virtues of the present system, which is true not only of barristers but of solicitors—that we are open to representing both sides. I believe that that is a virtue and the noble Lord was right to draw attention to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was right to draw attention to an essential fact in the bringing in of this new scheme; namely, to quote her words, that the state must not control the defender.
The reality is that the present system does not always work very well. We have the duty solicitor system, but sometimes very young, immature lawyers are required to do that duty and sometimes advice is in the hands of a novice. The barrister defender system in the private sector does not always go very well. For example, there is an enormous proportion of last-minute returns of brief, and barristers often have to appear in court without any proper opportunity to read their papers before the case has started.
Therefore, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward this total review of both the criminal and the civil side, setting up the criminal defence service and bringing it into use on an "as need" basis. That is all that he is proposing. He is not proposing, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, to abolish altogether the private defender in the system. Indeed, the system will continue to rely substantially on the independent private practitioner.
564
There are rural areas where the accused is not presently well served. It is a long time since I appeared as a member of the Bar at the Bodmin Crown Court in what was then the Bodmin Quarter Sessions. However, it is my recollection that amid all the dispute about rights of audience there was a recognition in certain areas in Cornwall and Devon that solicitors should have full rights of audience to represent defendants in that area. That was before the Courts and Legal Services Act came into force. The reason was very simple: there was a shortage of members of the Bar to serve those areas. That is not to criticise the Bar; it is to recognise that there are certain areas where further assistance needs to be provided to the accused in the defence services. That is all that my nobble and learned friend is proposing.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that there is not a shred of evidence that the proposed new service will be a 9 a. m. to 5 p.m. service. In so far as that comment is based upon the work of the CPS, it is a disrespectful one.
This House can be very conservative, not only politically in its contents, but also in its judgment over innovation. The amendment that has been pressed upon your Lordships during this debate seeks to prevent us moving forward, and to prevent us even having an alternative to the present system for the defence of the accused. At the end of the day, we are here to see that the defence is well represented.
As to Amendment No. 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I shall make just one comment. It seems to me that it is one of the advantages of the new system that, once a defence is in the hands of a member of the Criminal Defence Service, it would be thoroughly sensible, particularly, for example, in the case of a guilty plea, if the salaried defender took the case all the way through to the Crown Court. It would merely blunt efficiency if he were to be cut off from representation at the magistrates' level. For all of the reasons that I have attempted to advance, I hope that my noble and learned friend will robustly reject these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to remove completely, or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, restrict, the ability of the legal services commission to provide services by employing salaried lawyers.
The purpose of the Criminal Defence Service is to ensure that people subject to criminal investigations and proceedings receive the advice, assistance and representation that the interests of justice require. The Bill provides flexible powers to achieve that in whatever ways will secure the best value for money, consistent with the interests of justice. One of those powers is the power for the legal services commission to provide some advice, assistance and representation through its own employees. It is that modest power that these amendments seek to strike down or restrict.
I have repeatedly made it clear that it is not the Government's intention to move to a fully-employed public defender service or anything like it. But that does not deter the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford,

565
from referring to a nationalised defence service. At best, it is a figment of his imagination; at worst, it is a scare story to buttress a bad argument. To make that clearer still, I have tabled Amendment No. 111, which we shall discuss later, to preclude regulations which could prescribe circumstances in which people may only choose a salaried defender. I repeat that people will always have a choice. Talk of assigned lawyers is therefore equally inconsistent with what is proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said, with a sense of discovery—he used the words, "There you have it"—that what was intended was that all, or almost all, criminal defence services would over time be provided through contracted or salaried lawyers. What he omitted to note was that contracted lawyers are lawyers from the independent legal profession. Salaried lawyers would be the lawyers employed by the criminal defence service. It is intended that there should always he mixed provision and a choice.
Some disparaging things have been said about the lawyers who would work for the criminal defence service, which has been described as prospectively a part-time service, as if lawyers in public service would not be as committed as lawyers in independent practice. I can assure noble Lords that the dedicated Civil Servants in my own private office, who work long hours which in many other walks of life would be regarded as unsocial, do so out of a strong sense of public service.
Noble Lords: Hear. Hear!
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no reason to suppose that committed, salaried defenders would show anything other than dedication to public service.
I firmly believe that a salaried element has an important role to play in the overall scheme. First, it can step into gaps which cannot be filled adequately by the private profession alone. An example might be a rural area with relatively few solicitors' firms undertaking criminal work. The provision of a 24-hour duty solicitor service at the police stations in that area might be too great a burden for those firms to bear alone. At present, the result would probably be excessive use of telephone advice rather than attendance and over-reliance on non-qualified representatives; in other words, the quality of the service would suffer. In future, the commission's salaried employees could share the provision of 24-hour coverage with the local firms.
Secondly, it will provide the individual with a wider choice. It is my belief that salaried defenders will be seen as providing at least as good a service as private practitioners and that they will prove to be popular. In some areas there may be a limited number of firms which meet the quality standards for a contract. A salaried defender will therefore provide additional choice.
Thirdly, a mixed system of salaried and private providers will enable the commission to benchmark the costs and quality of each against the other. That spur of competition for salaried and private defenders will help promote value for money. It is my belief—and there are
566
successful systems overseas which support that belief—that a mixed system of private and directly-employed lawyers can provide better value for money than either a fully private or a fully employed system. I make no apology whatever to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for seeking better value for money.
Last Thursday the Liberal Democrat Benches pressed an amendment—not their own—that was concerned with the risk that increases in the cost of criminal defence services might reduce the resources available for the community legal service. The amendment was, rightly, rejected by your Lordships. But the underlying concern is real enough: indeed, I have expressed it repeatedly myself. The answer is to ensure that we can secure the best value for money for criminal defence services consistent with the interests of justice. Many of your Lordships may therefore think that it beggars belief to find that those same Liberal Democrat Benches now seek to strike down one of the powers which will help achieve value for money.
What are the arguments against this proposal? I wonder that it has not yet been said that, like Swift, I am proposing to reduce the private Bar to such penury that its members will have to eat their children. No, the objections reduce, I think, to two. First, it is said that salaried defenders will be second-rate, under-funded and overworked. That charge is developed by anecdote, not by evidence. The many successful public defender schemes in other countries are not cited. Secondly, it is said that defenders employed by the state will be insufficiently independent.
My proposals are underpinned by a great deal of research into public defender schemes abroad. The picture is mixed. There are some very good public defender schemes and some poor ones. It has been said that salaried defenders will be overburdened by heavy caseloads. Heavy caseloads and insufficient funding go hand in hand. Caseload limits are unnecessary where services are appropriately resoursed. I accept that adequate funding is essential; but that must be true also of schemes that purchase services from the private sector. Most of the horror stories relate to public defender schemes in the United States of America. These are organised at state or, more commonly, county or court district level. They are not overseen by any federal agency nor underpinned by the kind of statutory framework proposed in the Bill. I am determined to ensure that the criminal defence service, in both its private and directly employed elements, will be adequately funded to provide the quality services that suspects and defendants undoubtedly require.
We shall, of course, seek to draw only on the best examples from other countries when establishing salaried defenders in England and Wales. We shall also be taking account of the Scottish pilot. Salaried defenders will be introduced in a measured way, involving consultation and piloting to establish how and where salaried defenders can be deployed to best effect.
Nor is there any reason to believe that only the second-rate will be willing to work as salaried defenders. Salaried employment as a criminal defender could prove an attractive proposition for many

567
committed and public-spirited lawyers. Reference has been made to the hard-pressed barrister, with no pension or guaranteed income. Why should he or she not take advantage of this new career opportunity? The increased rights of audience proposed in Part III of the Bill should lead to greater career flexibility between salaried defence lawyers, crown prosecutors, the independent Bar and solicitors in private practice. Far from salaried lawyers becoming too "prosecution" or "defence" minded, this increased flexibility is likely to broaden experience and reduce that risk. At present, as all those who have spoken know perfectly well, there are many advocates in private practice who appear almost exclusively for either the prosecution or defence.
I now turn to the issue of independence. It has been argued that salaried defenders, motivated solely by crude bureaucratic targets, might collude with Crown prosecutors to find ways of shortening cases and clearing lists. Crown prosecutors and salaried defenders would work for different organisations. But the charge of collusion is never heard when two barristers from the same chambers appear on opposite sides in the same case. The assumption must be that lawyers in private practice are entirely free from any pressures that might conceivably threaten their professional ethics. That assumption is not well founded.
Is the solicitor, a partner in his or her firm, free of the pressure of the balance sheet? Are salaried solicitors in private firms immune to the pressure of the time sheet and need to impress the partners and retain valued clients? These pressures could just as easily influence judgment and actions as the pressures faced by a state-employed lawyer. In both cases it is the ethics of the profession, backed-up by vigilant judges, which ensure that the highest standards are maintained.
The pressing need for most members of the Bar is to ensure that they are briefed to appear in subsequent cases. Their livelihood depends upon it. Very many lawyers, solicitors and barristers, are largely dependent on state funding, through legal aid or prosecution work, for their financial survival. Are they really more independent than an employee? Pressures exist in many forms. The notion that lawyers in private practice are free spirits who live a halcyon existence, idyllic and free of pressures, is fanciful and unreal.
The reality is that the safeguards that will exist to protect the independent professional judgment of salaried defenders will, if anything, exceed those which apply to vulnerable barristers or profit-led solicitors. Salaried defenders will have a secure salary and a pension; they will not face the need to turn a profit case by case. They will enjoy protection from unfair dismissal.
It is most important that any salaried lawyers employed by the legal services commission should uphold the highest standards of the profession. That is why Amendment No. 122, which will be debated later, will introduce a comprehensive statutory code for salaried defenders to guarantee those standards. Clause 35 of the Bill also gives statutory force to the duty, which all advocates have to the courts before which they are engaged, to act in the interests of justice. Their duty to comply with the conduct rules of their professional body will again be underscored by statute. These duties take
568
precedence over any other civil law obligation that an advocate or litigator may have, including any obligations to his or her employer. The necessary safeguards of professional ethics will be in place. I simply do not accept that salaried defenders will face greater pressure on their independence, ethics and duties to the court and their clients, than are already faced and generally successfully resisted by private practitioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has described shortly but not yet moved Amendment No. 103. Since it is in this grouping I shall deal with it at this stage. By this amendment the noble Lord seeks to exclude salaried defenders only from the higher criminal courts. I cannot see the logic of that restriction. It may he that a suitably-qualified and competent lawyer employed by the commission is chosen by a suspect to advise and assist him in the police station. The same lawyer would probably represent the client in the magistrates' court. Surely it is appropriate for that lawyer, if qualified to do so, to continue to represent the client if the case goes to the Crown Court, perhaps on committal for sentence. This will avoid duplication of instruction, secure value for money and, at the same time, satisfy the defendant, who is more likely to have confidence in a representative who is a familiar face.
Some noble Lords referred to the problem that affects the clients of the independent Bar arising out of returned briefs. A Crown Court survey conducted by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1992 by Professor Zandar found that one third of defence barristers said that they had their briefs on the day before the hearing or only on the day itself. Defence barristers said that the brief had been returned from other barristers in 44 per cent. of all contested cases. This causes great dissatisfaction to clients of the private Bar. I submit to your Lordships that the possibility of the engagement of salaried lawyers by the criminal defence service will break down restrictive practice, offer greater choice and improve the quality of service.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the pressures on members of the private Bar and solicitors. The greatest pressure on those who are engaged in criminal practice is the ethos of the profession, which puts the interests of the defendant alone above everything else, even including advancement in a judicial career. That is what binds together noble Lords on all sides of the House for whose support in this debate I am grateful. That is what binds the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Scotland, my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and myself. One is concerned to protect the dynamics of the criminal Bar and the ethos of that profession.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said that we were resistant to change. What is the need for change? That was the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. With the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor, he has not demonstrated any need for change. He says that our proposals are based on anecdote, not evidence. The noble and learned Lord does not even have anecdotes to support his position; he has no evidence. No research has been carried out.

569
The noble and learned Lord made reference to what happened in foreign jurisdictions. In the course of my speech to your Lordships I drew attention to the fact that in the United States the Department of Justice was deeply concerned about the way in which indigent defence systems worked there. In 13 states the systems are precisely akin to that which is now proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
We on these Benches believe in value for money, but we do not interpret "value" to mean the disposal of a case. We interpret the value that is achieved for the money that is expended on defence services as the degree to which the interests of the defendant have been protected by his advocate in court, whether it be a solicitor or barrister. I am not satisfied with the answers that the noble and learned Lord has given and I seek to obtain the opinion of the House.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 189; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addington, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Addison, V.

Cross, V.

Ailsa, M.

Cumberlege, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L

Dahrendorf, L

Anelay of St. Johns, B

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Annaly, L

Davidson. V.

Astor, V

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor of Hever, L

Denbigh, E.

Attlee, E.

Dholakia, L.

Avebury, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Donegall, M.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Belstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Berners. B.

Ellenborough, L.

Biddulph, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Erne, E.

Blatch. B.

Ezra, L.

Boardman, L.

Falkland. V.

Bridgeman, V.

Gainford, L.

Bridges. L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Brightman, L.

Geddes, L

Broadbridge, L.

Geraint, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Burnham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Butterfield, L.

Goodhart, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gray, L.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L

Calverley, L.

Grimston of Westbury,L.

Campbell of Alloway,L.

Harding of Petherton,L.

Carew, L.

Harmar-Nicholls,L.

Carlisle of Bucklow,L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Higgins, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Holderness, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hooson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hothfield, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howe, E.

570

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rees, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthom, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Renton, L.

Jopling, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L.

Kintore, E.

Russell, E.

Knollys, V.

St. Davids, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sandford, L.

Leigh, L.

Sandwich, E.

Liverpool, E.

Savile, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Macclesfield, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mackay of Ardhrecknish, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stair, E.

McNair, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maddock, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Swansea, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taverne, L.

Middleton, L.

Taylor of Warwick. L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thurso, V.

Mountevans, L.

Tope, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Moyne, L.

Torrington, V.

Moynihan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Vinson, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Newby, L.

Waddington, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Northesk, E.

Wakeham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Walpole, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Weatherill, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Weir, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Wigoder, L

Palmer, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Peel, E.

Wilcox, B.

Pender, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wise, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Camarvon, E.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Alli, L.

Christopher, L.

Amos, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Crawley, B.

Attenborough, L.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dixon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Blease, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Dubs, L.

Bragg, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Erroll, E.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Callaghan of

Fitt, L.

571

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Gilbert, L

Monkswell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Orme, L.

Gregson, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hacking, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardie, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Haskel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hayman, B.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon,

Rendell of Babergh, B.

B. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hoyle, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Sewel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shannon, E.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Irvine of I airg, L.[Lord

Shepherd, L.

Chancellor.]

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Islwyn, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Simon of Highbury, L.

Seal.]

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Stone of Blackheath, L

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill, L

Strafford, E.

Levy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Longford, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller.]

Varley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Marsh, L.

Warner, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitty,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Business
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on genetically modified foods, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Genetically Modified Foods: Safety
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer which has
572
been given by my right honourable friend to a Private Notice Question in the other place on genetically modified foods. The Answer is as follows:
"The Government are fully committed to ensuring the safety of food.
"All genetically modified foods and food ingredients go through a process of very thorough scrutiny by a committee of experts, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which advises Government and whose remit is to examine all novel foods. They are also scrutinised by equivalent bodies in all other member states, to ensure that no food comes onto the market unless it is safe.
"This committee, which was established in 1988, has members from universities and research institutes who are experts in their fields and are fully up to date with the latest scientific thinking. There are also two lay members whose respective roles are to advise on ethical issues and see that the experts pay attention to the concerns of the wider public. Since May 1997, it has been taking steps to become increasingly open and now publishes all its agendas, minutes and a note of the outcome of each meeting.
"The products which have been authorised have all been through this rigorous process.
"We are also committed to the principle of consumer choice. The Government are determined that all foods containing GM material should be clearly labelled. We are leading the way in Europe in this area by also requiring the provision of information in catering establishments. We are taking steps to ensure that local authorities have all the necessary powers to enforce these requirements.
"In addition, we are pressing the European Union Commission to bring forward proposals for the labelling of animal feeds as quickly as possible. But choice also means having access to alternatives. That is why we have published a list of 59 companies from which food manufacturers can obtain non-genetically modified soya. We believe that all this adds up to a system in which consumers can have confidence.
"Much of the recent debate has unhelpfully confused the two issues of safety of food and protection of the environment; and there have been many attempts to generalise from findings in laboratories at the experimental stages.
"GM is a development which has huge potential to benefit society in a variety of ways and scientists should be allowed to pursue experimental work. It is however important that end products are only put on the market after the most careful scrutiny of their effects on human health.
"We believe that we have a robust and open system for ensuring that the consumer is fully protected, but that those who wish can choose whether or not to purchase these products.
"Above all, it is the Government's first priority to ensure that the safety of consumers is fully protected and that will remain the case".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on GM food, a subject which has caused such concern to the public. We realise that this is not an easy matter and there are certainly no easy answers, but I wish to ask the Minister two main questions.
Is he aware that apart from the comforting Statement which he has just read, the public's confidence in the safety of food which contains genetically modified ingredients is being damaged day-by-day by the Government's mishandling of the issue and that they have a clear duty to give unequivocal guidance to manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike? Will he say what the Government are doing in respect of the fears about the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes?
Finally, does the Minister share our view that the only way to restore confidence in the safety of food and the technology which may well be very beneficial is to recognise the environmental risks; to continue with and to continue to publish all the research; to monitor progress; to inform the public of all official contacts with commercial interests; and to ensure that all are dealt with in an open and transparent way?
4.47 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for giving us the current status on genetically modified foods. We on these Benches accept that there are great dangers in playing politics with the issue of food safety. However, we believe that there are legitimate questions about the Government's handling of GM foods.
Environment and food safety are linked in the public's mind, and there are concerns about matters such as scientific research being carried out as regards crop cultivation and its impact on surrounding food crops; ingredients in food; labelling; and the pressure of huge American companies being brought to bear on this Government, the EU and the US Government. We join with consumer and environmental groups and others such as the British Retail Consortium in asking a number of pertinent questions. In particular, will the Government take a clear and precautionary line on GM foods? Will they agree on a five-year freeze on the commercial planting of GM food crops? Will they also ensure that the remit of the Food Standards Agency will cover GM foods? Will they bring forward the EU proposals into UK law earlier than is proposed in the EU as a whole in respect of additives and foodstuffs and in particular in the use of GM foods in processing?
We fully accept the principle of consumer choice, but without adequate labelling it is impossible for the consumer to make an informed choice. Some supermarkets are already taking good steps with their own brands, but without adequate legislation across the board on labelling we do not believe that consumers will be well served. Does the Minister agree?
574
Will the Minister review the evidence to the BSE inquiry, in particular the statements made by former chief medical officers about the definition of "safe"? What definition of "safe" is being used by the committee referred to in the Statement?
As regards the segregation of GM foods from other foods, will the Government press the US Government at the highest level to ensure that segregation takes place? As a result of the welter of comments made by current and former chairmen of supermarkets, does the Minister agree with the statement made by Malcolm Walker, the Iceland Group Chairman, who asked why there is such a rush to foist these products on the public when their long-term effects on health and the environment are unknown? Will the Minster reaffirm that the Government fully adopt a precautionary principle as regards the use of GM foods?
4.50 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the deluge of questions. To the noble Baroness opposite I have to say that it takes some chutzpah to accuse this Government of any damage to confidence by mishandling this issue. The Government have done much to secure confidence in order to repair the enormous gap left by the previous administration who did virtually nothing.
We have introduced transparency in the relevant committees. We have appointed lay members to represent the consumer interest and we have required the publication of agendas and minutes. We have introduced labelling for the two main genetically modified foods which are on sale. All the genetically modified foods which are on sale and which are causing some of the fuss now were approved under the previous government. But they did not allow any proper labelling of them. They, alone in Brussels, opposed that labelling. Despite pressure in Brussels, we have managed to secure the proper and clear labelling of those foods. That restores confidence. What went on before damaged it. We are even seeking to extend the labelling to catering. Therefore, the suggestion that we are in any sense responsible really takes my breath away.
There is the issue of animal feed which may contain GM products. We are about to announce the setting up of a committee to look into that and we shall pursue that matter in Brussels. But when the previous government were advised in 1991 to deal with the issue of GMs in animal feed, they refused. In 1992, they announced that they would do so and then did nothing. Therefore, that is not a subject on which the Opposition should speak as loudly as they have done recently.
Some of the damage to confidence comes from scaremongering. We need to take and continue to take a balanced and measured approach to what is a most serious issue. Where there is genuine public concern, we need to make sure that we have adequate and rigorous methods of assessment and the provision of the maximum information to the public. That is what we are attempting to do.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we take a precautionary line. We put the public health and the safety of the environment at the very top

575
of our priorities. The noble Lord referred to the food standards agency. It is clear from the published Bill that that will be responsible for GM foods and it will be advised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes which deals with that area.
The noble Lord referred to labelling. I agree that that is a central issue. We must deal with it through the European Union. But we are very much ahead of the game there in pressing for the maximum labelling possible. The noble Lord mentioned additives and flavouring. That is very important. We are attempting to achieve European Union action in that regard.
The definition of safety follows the principle of equivalence which the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes applies.
Segregation is an extremely frustrating issue. We cannot achieve segregation of GM and non-GM foods in our imports, especially from the United States. I should point out that when this first became a matter of concern, as I understand it, the previous government did not press the United States' government to do something about that. When we came into power, we looked into that matter but it is too late. We cannot do anything now without risking problems with the World Trade Organisation. We should not be permitted to make that a condition of refusing entry because safety is the only reason permitted in that regard. I hope that that deals with many of the points that were raised.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is quite right when he says that there has been too much scaremongering on this issue? Is he aware also that many of the matters which he covered in his Statement were repetitions of what appeared in the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House which was published a few weeks ago? In particular, I am thinking of the Select Committee's recommendations about better labelling and segregation.
Will the Minister go a little further than the Statement and recall that the Select Committee report took up and supported a recommendation of the Royal Society that there are shortcomings with regards to testing and monitoring GM foods and that there is a need for an over-arching body to be set up to monitor testing and monitoring and to ensure that it is carried out more efficiently? It would be most helpful if the Government would support that recommendation, which I believe would put a stop to much of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation that there has been.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely helpful contribution. Of course, he speaks with considerable experience. We have received the Select Committee report which is extremely serious and helpful. We are considering our response and there will be a response within the due time. My initial reaction—although it is not yet the Government's formal reaction—is that the suggestion of an over-arching independent body is one of great interest.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Would the Minister tell the House why Dr. Pusztai of the Rowett research
576
institute in Aberdeen was sacked following his claim that his research showed that rats fed with genetically modified—I wanted to say manipulated—potatoes had their immunity destroyed? Could he say whether the British Government had any part in that sacking and whether the treatment of this eminent researcher is to be reconsidered in view of the fact that 20 eminent researchers have since vindicated the analysis of his research?
Finally, does the Minister agree that there will be no confidence in anything that either the Government or any major vested interest, like Monsanto, say in reassurance if there is to be any suggestion that adverse findings are to be suppressed?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government have played no role in suppressing any research. Whatever took place was a matter for the Rowett Institute. We would encourage the person carrying out the research to publish his conclusions. We would also encourage the publication of the claimed support from 20 other colleagues. We are in the curious position of that research being leaked to the press, but it was not made available to us or to our advisory committee. As far as possible we would encourage them all to publish. Our wish is to receive the maximum respectable scientific advice in this area so that we can take what are difficult and complex decisions.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, any rational person who has read the excellent report of the Select Committee of this House and the powerful evidence given to the committee, such as that of Dr. Bainbridge and Professor Mark Williamson, must come to the conclusion that broadly speaking the Government's attitude on this subject is right. Does the Minister agree that while it is important that there should be strict monitoring and regulation of new products, the likelihood is that the potential benefits of genetically modified food will outweigh the potential risks? Will the Government continue to resist the rather anti-science overtones of the hysteria that has been whipped up by certain sections of the press—with the honourable exception of the Daily Telegraph—and by certain politicians who seem eager to jump on a populist bandwagon without proper research into the evidence?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that we may be broadly right, as I believe to be the case, in taking a measured and balanced view. We do not wish to be an obstacle to scientific development. I entirely agree with him in speaking against the hysterical attitude of some of our tabloid journalism. It is regrettable that some politicians—I think in another place—have tried to climb on that very wobbly bandwagon. We wish to encourage science, but not at any risk to public health or to the environment. We have to preserve that delicate balance and that is why we try to put in place the maximum regulatory and assessment procedures possible without bringing science to a halt. We need to be convinced that

577
any genetically modified food products that come on to the market have passed the maximum tests and have scientific approval.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that much of the recent concern is over some perhaps informed and some perhaps ill-informed comments on work done by the Rowett Institute on genetically modified potatoes? In order to try to clear up the confusion, will my noble friend say whether the potatoes used in the experiment were genetically modified potatoes that were due to be put on the market for human consumption, or were they specially genetically modified by the researcher concerned to test the effects of some lectins on rats? It is important to know whether that was an experiment, simply as an experiment, or a check on a genetically modified food available for public consumption, or a food that is to be made available for public consumption. If a report is not published, on either side, people are free to speculate as to what research material exists and what it says. If there is a report in the hands of the Scottish Office in Edinburgh, would it not be prudent to publish that as soon as possible and to go further and make funding available so that those experiments could be openly re-checked?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on the heart of the issue. The potatoes being tested were not genetically modified potatoes. They were not potatoes that were being considered for submission to the novel foods committee or for marketing. They were potatoes of a particular kind, as I understand it—it was not government research—and they were considered appropriate to certain aspects of that research. It would help us all if those involved published the research so that it can be judged by peer groups and other scientists and so that other tests can be done in the normal scientific way. I am not aware of whether the Scottish Office has any report. I shall ask my noble friend.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, given the importance of the project, is the Minister not being rather complacent as far as Dr. Pusztai's work is concerned? Would it not be sensible to ask Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues to appear before the advisory committee? Unless they do, it will be impossible for any of us to reach a considered conclusion about the importance of that work. Will the Minister also accept that as 22 of the 33 boroughs in London, 14 county councils in England and even the restaurants in another place have banned genetically modified food this is not just scaremongering? There is widespread public unease and the Government will be out of step with that unease if they do not allow proper, open, transparent debate and accept the advice given to them earlier. There may well be, in the light of the previous difficulties over the BSE crisis, a reason to have a moratorium for at least a limited period while the issue can be properly considered.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have no complacency on this issue whatsoever.
578
As I have said, on the Rowett situation we have urged publication by all sides. If the advisory committee wishes to summon any of those witnesses that is its choice. It is an independent advisory committee. We do not control it. I accept that there is unease. It is totally understandable that in something as profound as this members of the public should be concerned. The activities of some scaremongerers are less responsible. They are stirring up the issue and attempting to frighten people. That is outrageous. I agree that we need transparency and, as I have said, the Government have made enormous progress towards introducing transparency in this research area.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point about reassurance. If he were able to offer reassurance on a particular point, that would go a long way to diminish some of the anxiety in the community. This morning on Radio 5, the Chief Scientific Officer was unable to give reassurance on a question posed by a lady from Ely in Cambridgeshire. The questioner asked what scientific work has been done and what database is available to reassure pregnant women and nursing mothers that there is no danger whatsoever from eating genetically modified foods.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have some difficulty commenting on that because I did not hear the programme and I have riot heard what the Chief Scientific Officer said. The question, "Is there absolutely no danger?", is the question, "Is it absolutely and totally safe?". There are serious problems in saying with total confidence that anything is totally safe. However, the criteria that we use—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what work is done?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on what work is done because, frankly, I do not know.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, following the intervention from the noble Baroness opposite, I thank the Government for the Statement. I also thank the Government's Chief Scientific Officer for the discussion on the "Today" programme this morning. It seemed to me that he at last had brought some clarity into the discussion, whereas, as the noble Lord has already said, there has been considerable confusion and some scaremongering. In order to ensure that the debate continues in a sensible way, may I urge the Government to respond as soon as possible—clearly, this Statement is not the time to do it—to the report from the Select Committee so that we can have a full debate on it because I believe that that will assist in clarifying matters further?
Can the Minister confirm or deny the information that I have received that the active material that was used by Dr. Pusztai was of the order of 5, 000 times the normal level in potatoes? Can the Minister also confirm that the

579
Select Committee report points out that if potatoes were introduced today, they would not be allowed through the normal screening process?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord and all his colleagues on that Select Committee. In my observation, all such reports bring great credit to this House. I have already discussed that report with the noble Lord and I found it particularly good. I can promise the noble Lord that we shall respond within the due time. The question of a debate is for the usual channels. With regard to Dr. Pusztai, it is the case that the level of active materials used was impressively high and it could therefore be argued that it was not of practical relevance.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, first, does the Minister accept that logic and information from the advisory committee will provide reassurance about our own foods, or should do so? To what extent do equivalent advisory committees exist in other countries where such foods are produced; such as the United States or other European countries? After all, food whether raw or processed now crosses boundaries.
Secondly, there is a possibility of some genetically modified fish, for example—except that that has not yet been done—getting out into the wild. Such foods could be produced by countries which have no or very few controls. Is pressure being brought to bear to try to bring into line countries without such regulations?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware that the quality of our advisory committees is as high as anywhere—and is higher than in many other countries. We are not in a position to determine the quality of advisory committees in other countries. However, these matters are dealt with on a pan-European basis within the European Union. With regard to other countries, the same question arises. To a great extent, we can influence what happens within the European Union, but outside the European Union it is a question of applying the rules of the World Trade Organisation. If any other points will be helpful to the noble Lord, I shall certainly write to him about them.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although it is clear that the Government have demonstrated a clear, continuing and much improved approach to food safety, would my noble friend care to consider the fact that a number of well informed conservationists have certain anxieties about the ecological consequences? The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, may not have noticed that in one newspaper report six of the 20 scientists quoted appeared to be offering cautionary comments, some about the ecological effects. I support the call for a debate on the matter in this House, but does my noble friend understand that the British countryside and British ecology have suffered grievous damage over recent decades as a result of agricultural changes and
580
that assurances are needed, not least with regard to the transfer of genetic material from a commercial species to a wild one?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend makes some important points. We are very aware of the danger of transference from the commercial to the wild. The trial plantings due to take place will be geared in that direction. The broader environmental and ecological aspects are not my responsibility but rest with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, the two departments work closely together on these issues.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reassurance of the public, where that is appropriate, is more easily achieved if the scientific research on which we must perforce rely is funded without strings from public funds than if it is sponsored by those who might have a commercial interest in its outcome?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is a very deep issue. The reality is that a great deal of the research that is carried out has received major contributions from private interests, some of which—or many of which—could be said to have an interest in the outcome. That is why we have in place various regulatory procedures and assessment committees to consider the conclusions and much peer assessment by other scientists. Those involved must declare their interests, which have to be registered and are published. We put in place whatever process we can to ensure an independent outcome. In the end, we are dependent on the integrity of our scientists conducting this research. I do not believe that there is great evidence that they lack that integrity.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we have now reached the time when we must move on.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
5.16 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 13.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert ("excpt itself providing advice and assistance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) The Lord Chancellor may by order require the Commission to discharge the function in subsection (2) in accordance with the order.").
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall not take up more than a moment of your Lordships' time, but I wanted to question whether it is really necessary to add another subsection to Clause 13(2) to achieve that which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes.

581
Clause 13(1) requires the commission to give legal assistance to persons arrested and held in custody. Subsection (2) states how that is to be done. The amendment seeks to add a further subsection (2A), stating:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order require the Commission to discharge the function in subsection (2) in accordance with the order".
My question to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is whether what he wants could not be achieved simply by adding eight words to line 15 on page 9 which currently reads:
"The Commission may comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1)",
and so forth. Would it not be sufficient simply to say, "The commission may and, if ordered by the Lord Chancellor, shall, comply with the duty"? That would get rid of the proposed subsection. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend is willing to refer this suggestion to his drafting team.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that these amendments have already been debated, but in view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, I shall study Hansard, refer his point to the draftsman and write to him thereafter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Representation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 9, line 33, leave out from ("3") to end of line 38 and insert ("(which makes provision about the grant of a right to representation in criminal proceedings) has effect; and the Commission shall fund representation to which an individual has been granted a right in accordance with that Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 9. line 40, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 100A, 106A and 190A are purely technical and consequential on Amendment No. 100, which has been debated already. Amendment No. 100 places the duty to fund representation in Clause 14(1) instead of its present position in subsection (2). These amendments are necessary to amend the reference to the duty where it appears in the existing Clause 14(3) and (5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 10, line 7, leave out ("or loans").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee debate I accepted Amendment No. 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. His amendment deleted the reference in Clause 13(2)(e) to loans as a method of funding individuals to enable them to obtain advice and assistance in criminal cases. The mention of loans in the clause, as currently drafted, was an anomaly resulting from common drafting elements in Clause 7 of the Bill relating to the community legal service.
The noble Lord's arguments apply equally to loans to individuals for representation in Clause 14(3)(e). Payment for representation will be required only in the circumstances described in Clause 16(2), which states:
"(2) Where representation for an individual in respect of criminal proceedings in the Crown Court is funded by the Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service, the trial judge may, subject to regulations under subsection (3), make an order requiring him to pay some or all of the cost of the representation".
Loans for criminal defence services are never appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, if Amendment No. 102 is agreed to, 1 cannot call Amendment No. 103.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 10, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert ("except itself providing representation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) The Lord Chancellor—

(a)shall by order make provision about the payments which may be made by the Commission in respect of any representation provided by non-contracted private practitioners, and

(b)may by order make any other provision requiring the Commission to discharge the function in subsection (3) in accordance with the order.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)(a) representation is provided by a non-contracted private practitioner if it is provided, otherwise than pursuant to a contract entered into by the Commission, by a person or body which is neither‐

(a)a person or body in receipt of grants or loans made by the Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service, nor

(b)the Commission itself or a body established or maintained by the Commission.

(3C) The provision which the Lord Chancellor is required to make by order under subsection (3A)(a) includes provision for reviews of, or appeals against, determinations required for the purposes of the order.").
[Amendment No. 106, as an amendment to Amendment No. 105, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 105 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("making payments to") arid insert ("funding representation by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("only one representative or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 108 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 109 to 113. They relate to Clause 14(6) of the Bill, which gives power to make regulations restricting a defendant's free choice of representative in prescribed circumstances.
The issue of choice was debated at some length in Committee on 26th January. Concern centred upon salaried defenders and whether the provisions of Clause 14(6) would be used to restrict choice to salaried defenders only. That is not my intention, and I have tabled Amendment No. 111 to make that clear on the face of the Bill.
I also undertook to consider whether the drafting of subsection (6) could be clarified, and Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 and Amendment No. 113 are the result. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I first set out the intentions behind subsection (6), dealing with these drafting amendments as I go. I will take the five subsections in order of significance, rather than alphabetical order.
The White Paper, Modernising Justice, at paragraphs 6.12 to 6.24 and 6.28 to 6.30, set out the Government's plans for developing and implementing contracts for criminal defence services; the way we expect those contracts to be structured; and the relationship between contracts and the defendant's choice of representative. Our firm view is that contracting, plus a salaried element, offers the best means of providing high quality services for suspects and defendants while securing the best possible value for money.
As I explained in Committee, Clause 14(6)(c) is fundamental to those plans. It will allow the defendant's choice to be limited to any lawyer with a current contract with the legal services commission, plus a salaried defender. The scope of regulations under this subsection will he extended gradually as contracts for various types of work are piloted and rolled out generally. The first contracts will cover advice and assistance at the police station, including a share of the duty solicitor work at the local police stations and magistrates' courts. These will be extended to cover first representation in magistrates' court cases; then the work of litigators in most Crown Court cases; and then perhaps advocacy in those cases. Once contracts provide adequate coverage at each level, regulations under Clause 14(6)(c) will provide that the suspect or defendant may no longer choose a non-contracted representative.
Our intention is to ensure that suspects and defendants generally have a choice between several contracted firms, possibly plus a salaried defender. In the first round of contracting, we intend to guarantee a contract to all firms which meet quality standards. I would expect most to continue to win contracts thereafter if they continue to meet the quality standards and are prepared to participate in the duty solicitor scheme. This is important both to sustain the quality of this important service by ensuring that it does not become the preserve of firms which cannot win more lucrative contracts and
584
as a key part of our plans for providing continuity of representation from the police station to and through the courts.
Separate regulations under Clause 14(6)(c) will provide for a more limited choice in categories of case—for example, fraud trials—which are typically very expensive cases and require special skills, experience and sometimes technology. In these cases, the defendant's choice will be restricted to members of a specialist panel; but this would be a choice between quality-assured lawyers who had demonstrated both the necessary competence and administrative systems to deal with these specialised and weighty cases.
I have already mentioned continuity of representation. Regulations under Clause 14(6)(e) will establish a presumption that, having once chosen a representative, a defendant may not choose to replace that representative with some other, except for good reason. The intention is to reduce delay and the cost involved in instructing a new representative. Regulations under this subsection will define what constitutes an acceptable reason for a change; for example a conflict of interest or a clear breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship. Amendment No. 110 clarifies the drafting of the subsection.
Clause 14(6)(d) deals with the number of representatives that may be chosen in a given case. Again, Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 seek to clarify the drafting. Most cases start at the police station, where the suspect will either choose a named, contracted solicitor, or offer no preference and be advised by the duty solicitor, who on any given day might be a contracted solicitor or a salaried defender. If the case proceeds to trial in the Crown Court, there will be an opportunity to exercise a second choice to select an advocate. The defendant might choose a barrister in private practice, a salaried defender or, if the solicitor-representative was qualified and willing to act in the Crown Court, that solicitor-advocate who might also be a salaried defender. As now, it would be the solicitor's duty to advise the client about the options and instruct the advocate. Initially, the choice of advocate would encompass any barrister willing to act in the case. In due course, if contracts with banisters can be developed successfully, choice may be limited under Clause 14(6)(c) to a barrister subject to such a contract.
Regulations under Clause 14(6)(d) will also prescribe the rare situations in which two advocates would be permitted, for example serious fraud trials. Closely linked to this will be regulations under subsection (6)(b) which will prescribe the limited circumstances in which the defendant will be entitled to select a Queen's Counsel.
Finally, there is Clause 14(6)(a) which provides for regulations, subject to the affirmative approval procedure, which remove the defendant's right to a choice altogether. The example I gave in Committee of the exceptional circumstances in which subsection (6)(a) might be used related to cross-examination of a rape victim on behalf of a defendant who was otherwise representing himself. In this and possibly a few other exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate to

585
assign an advocate on something like a "dock brief" basis so that a trial can proceed without delay. It will be a random matter whether the advocate who happens to be available at court is a salaried defender, a solicitor advocate or independent barrister. If more than one advocate is available, then the defendant will be able to choose his representative from among those available advocates. The circumstances prescribed under Clause 14(6)(a) will be rare indeed.
Amendment No. 113 which removes Clause 14(7) is consequential upon Amendment No. 107, which was debated earlier. I now turn to Amendment No. 111. This establishes on the face of the Bill that regulations under Clause 14(6) may not provide that a defendant may choose only a salaried defender. That was never my intention under the key Clause 14(6)(c) or under Clause 14(6)(b). The amendment precludes regulations under any part of Clause 14(6) which specifically restrict choice to salaried defenders.
I turn now to Amendment No. 112 proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart. If both my Amendment No. 111 and this amendment stand, the new subsection in Clause 14 would read as follows:
"( ) Regulations under subsection (6) may not provide that an individual may select only a person employed by the Commission or may not select a non-contracted private practitioner who is accredited to provide services of the kind required".
I cannot accept that amendment because it would undermine the approach I have just explained. We are giving people a generous choice but not an absolutely unrestricted choice. The amendment would prevent regulations under Clause 14(6)(c) which gradually limited choice to contracted and salaried providers. Contracting, in the longer term for most or all criminal defence services, is central to the reforms envisaged by this part of the Bill. I firmly believe that contracting represents the most cost-effective mechanism for imposing quality requirements and monitoring standards. Accreditation is just one part of this.
Accreditation relates to personal competence in limited circumstances, but does not address other aspects of quality standards which we would want to see in a contract, such as managerial supervision and internal peer review. But there is more to it than that. Contracting also offers the prospect of sustained and improving value for money, through reduced case-by-case bureaucracy, earlier and more predictable payment and, in time, a limited element of competition. More specifically, it is essential to our plans for ensuring that all firms participate in the duty solicitor scheme; and for providing, wherever possible, continuity of representation throughout the case.
I apologise for the length with which I have dealt with each part of Clause 14(6) but the ability to limit the choice of those needing representation in the ways described is essential to secure quality representation at a reasonable cost. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart, to withdraw their amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 10, line 28, after ("representatives") insert ("to ac: for him at any one time").
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("if another representative has been") and insert ("in place of a representative").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert-—
("( ) Regulations under subsection (6) may not provide that an individual may select only a person employed by the Commission.").
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, Amendment No. 112:
Line 3, at end insert ("or may not select a non-contracted private practitioner who is accredited to provide services of the kind required.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of this series of amendments. He said that he could not accept Amendment No. 112 because it would undermine the approach that he has adopted whereby everyone who is supported through the legal services commission and the criminal defence service will either be an employed lawyer—if legislation is passed to that effect—or, alternatively, will be under contract.
One can appreciate the noble and learned Lord's aim as regards solicitors. I can see that although it limits choice in the sense that contracts may not be freely given and it may create a monopoly within a particular town or area, those services should be provided by only one firm. However, as regards the Bar. we are in a difficult and different situation which 1 totally fail to understand. The issue has been raised time and again as to whether it is intended that there should be contracts between a set of chambers, or a group of practitioners within a set of chambers, or an individual practitioner, an individual banister, and the criminal defence service.
The answer that the noble and learned Lord has so far given to this difficult problem, which seems to me to alter the whole way in which the Bar has historically worked, is, "I am sure that barristers are bright enough to work out some way in which this can happen". When changes are proposed, one would like to have a little more guidance. Suppose, for example, I contract with the criminal defence service that in the course of the next year I shall do 12 serious cases, and I am instructed to do six. I do not receive instructions to do the other six; I have only six on the plate. I have agreed to do the 12 cases for a lump sum, but I am not asked to do that. Do I get the lump sum? Do I get the whole amount because that is what I am holding myself out to do? Alternatively, suppose I am given 18 cases and I have contracted on the basis of 12. What happens then? Is there a renegotiation of the contract? Difficulties arise when I and my one colleague hold ourselves out as being prepared to do this 'work and a lump sum is presumably paid jointly to us which we in some way have to find a formula for dividing.
As regards chambers, the position is even more difficult. Let us think of a criminal set of chambers, such as the chambers of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, which I believe does little other work. I may be trespassing here but I believe it is a well known set of criminal chambers. Do they contract as one set of chambers for a figure of, say, £2 million and employ some administrative way of dividing out the work? There is no guidance. Until there is some positive suggestion to which we can respond, it seems to me entirely wrong that we should face regulations which state that you are either contracted or you are employed and if you are not, you do not get any work and you do not get paid.
This amendment is set down in a serious vein. Perhaps this is not the moment to divide on this issue but it is certainly a moment to ask for clarification once more on this extremely difficult topic. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord has said. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will accept that certainly I, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, ask these questions in a genuine desire to assist. I remain bewildered to understand how the contracts which the Lord Chancellor says he wishes to see between the commission and members of the Bar will work.
When I raised this matter at the previous Report stage of the Bill, the reply that I received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was really what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just said. The noble and learned Lord said,
"The question of how the legal services commission will contract with the Bar is plainly, to a large extent, in the hands of the Bar.—[Official Report, 11/2/99; col. 396.]
With respect, surely the Bar and the House are entitled to know the thinking of the Lord Chancellor on these matters. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, he confused me further when he went on to say:
"The groupings might be chambers, people within chambers, or other groupings, including, for example. circuits".—[Official Report, 11/2/99; col. 397.]
I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Circuit; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will declare an interest as a member of the Welsh Circuit. Is it suggested that the commission can negotiate with, say, the leader of the circuit on behalf of the circuit? Can it negotiate and say that so much work will be done in that area by the Bar in exchange for a lump sum of money? If so, who then decides who does that work?
Unless one totally changes the whole ethos and present situation, the Bar consists of individuals who are in competition with each other. Where you have a group of individuals in competition with each other, who is to dictate? Is it the leader of the circuit who decides who does what case? Alternatively, is it, as at the moment, the right of the individual, through his solicitor, to go to the counsel of his choice, if he is available? This applies equally to chambers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that you could contract not
588
with an individual—which is a situation I understand—but with a group of chambers. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, how then do they get their work?
Does the Lord Chancellor's Department envisage that in future there should be direct access, or does it come through solicitors? If it comes through solicitors, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, what happens if the solicitors do not brief the member of the Bar to the extent to which he has contracted to do the work? If it is a contract with a group within the chambers, who decides who should do an individual case in a profession where people are in competition with each other? Is it the group of barristers together?
Finally, and perhaps most worryingly of all, is it intended eventually that the only person who can do the work is the contracted barrister? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain. As I understand it, you have a contract with a solicitor who will do a certain amount of work, which will include his disbursement for paying members of the Bar. If he chooses to go to the chambers of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, or the chambers in which I have my name, will he still be free to choose the barrister he wishes within those chambers, or will he be limited to one of the barristers who has individually contracted with the commission? If it is the second alternative, it seems to me that you are very substantially reducing the choice of the defendant or individual litigant. You are also making it quite impossible for people ever to start in the profession if they have to be an already contracted party before they can do any work of this nature.
I repeat, I am quite prepared to accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor believes that there is a great future in contracting and that it is advisable and sensible for obtaining value for money. I ask these questions because I remain genuinely bewildered about how the system will work when you are dealing with a profession where each individual is in direct competition with the other.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that on 2nd May 1997 I gave up giving legal advice, whether for reward or otherwise. I do not regard it as any part of my function at this Dispatch Box to give legal advice to those who, if I may say so, are as well equipped to give it to themselves as I am to give it to them.
I want to set the record straight. I am a friend of the Bar and I want the Bar to help itself. But I do not propose to advise the Bar how to help itself. I do not feel that I should be required to give legal advice to—of all people—the Bar of England and Wales, as to how to contract. Many years ago—indeed, in 1978—I had the privilege of being instructed by my predecessor, the late Lord Havers, to represent him in what was then called an industrial tribunal. The issue concerned whether a barrister's clerk was employed or self-employed: if he was employed, was there a contractual relationship between him and each and every member of chambers, or only with the head of chambers, or perhaps with the members of chambers for the time being as a contractual unity?

589
I agree that these are difficult questions, but there is some learning available on them which I would have thought is quite accessible to the Bar. I want to set the record straight. I have been expressing a concern for the Bar. If contracting proceeds with solicitors only and not directly with the Bar, the Bar will be left perhaps in some state of mercy in the sense that the solicitor will contract for the total provision of services. The solicitor will then sub-contract with individual banisters at terms to be negotiated between the solicitor and the barrister—and the solicitor will hold the whip hand because he has the contract. I have said time and again that the Bar, with all the expertise at its disposal, should be addressing how barristers could contract direct. The doors of my offices are open and my officials will be delighted to discuss this with the Bar.
I would have thought that the Bar is in a unique position to advise itself as to how effectively to contract. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked all sorts of questions about whether the contract would be entire or whether the consideration could be apportioned. With the greatest courtesy, he must give himself his own legal advice. The short answer is that the terms of the contract, whatever they may be, will rule.
I believe that contracting is a change for the better, and that those who oppose it perhaps feel that any change for the better is a contradiction in terms.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not necessarily oppose contracts with the Bar—if only I could understand how they are to come about. I will look at the leading authority in the industrial tribunal from the 1970s about banisters' clerks to see if I can get any guidance from that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord could look up a basic textbook on contracts.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, of course I am a very simple criminal lawyer. That is my problem. The Lord Chancellor will be the head of the organisation which effectively holds the whip hand as the other contracting party—through the criminal defence service, and so on—but when we are looking at it in this embryonic stage we are entitled to look to the Lord Chancellor and ask him how he sees it actually working. What sort of structures can we consider and address to see whether or not they are viable? What should be our attitude? If I were to stand here and put forward some sort of structure, your Lordships would be very quickly bored and say, "Please, do this somewhere else". However, I think that we are entitled to have this kind of information so we know exactly where we are going. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is quite right that there is no aggression in what I am saying. I am not anti-contract or anything else. I just want to know where we are. 1 do not propose to press the amendment to a vote today but I want to have some answers before we come back to it again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 112, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 111 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 10, line 32, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Criminal Defence Service: right to representation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 121:
Page 56, line 9, after second ("of") insert ("any kind of").
Page 56, line 10, leave out from ("to") to end of line 23 and insert ("an individual such as is mentioned in relation to that kind of proceedings in section 12(3).
(2)A right of representation for the purposes of criminal proceedings may also be granted to an individual to enable him to resist an appeal to the Crown Court otherwise than in an official capacity.
(3)In this Schedule "court" includes any body before which criminal proceedings take place.").
Page 57, line 6, leave out from ("of') to ("and") in line 7 and insert ("any one or more of the descriptions of proceedings prescribed under section 12(3)(f), ").
Page 57, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Page 57, line 16, leave out from ("make") to ("such") in line 20.
Page 57, line 31, leave out from ("individual") to ("serious") in line 33 and insert ("would, if any matter arising in the proceedings is decided against him, be likely to lose his liberty or livelihood or suffer").
Page 57, line 35, leave out ("the case") and insert ("any matter arising in the proceedings").
Page 57, line 39, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 41 and insert ("the proceedings may involve the tracing. interviewing or expert cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the individual, ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 122:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF CONDUCT
(".—(1) The Commission shall prepare a code of conduct to be observed by employees of the Commission in the provision of services as part of the Criminal Defence Service.

(2) The code shall include

(a)duties to avoid discrimination,

(b)duties to protect the interests of the individuals for whom services are provided,

(c)duties to the court,

(d)duties to avoid conflicts of interest, and

(e)duties of confidentiality.

(3) The Commission may from time to time prepare a revised version of the code.
(4) Before preparing or revising the code the Commission shall undertake such consultation as appears to it to be appropriate.
(5) After preparing the code or a revised version of the code the Commission shall send a copy to the Lord Chancellor.
(6) If he approves it he shall lay it before each House of Parliament.
(7) The Commission shall publish—

(a)the code as first approved by the Lord Chancellor, and

(b)where he approves a revised version, either the revisions or the revised code as appropriate.

(8) The code, and any revised version of the code, shall not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage on 26th January (at cols. 880 to 892 of Hansard) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proposed a new clause to set out a defenders' code. I agreed in principle that it is most important that the criminal defence service, including any salaried defenders engaged by the legal services commission, should uphold the highest standards of the legal profession. I said then, and still maintain, that defendants are entitled to no less. It is certainly no part of our plans that any service provided by salaried defenders should be second rate. I believe that salaried defenders will provide a bench-mark of quality and cost against which other defence lawyers can be judged.
In Committee I undertook to move a government amendment to introduce a code for salaried defenders. I drew the analogy with the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and laid before Parliament as part of his annual report to my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. This amendment will ensure that salaried defenders employed by the legal services commission are subject to a comprehensive code guaranteeing minimum standards of professional behaviour. Other defenders paid by the conunission, such as banisters or solicitors in private practice, would not be bound by the code but will be bound by their own professional rules.
I have set out in an unambiguous way what must be included within the code. The code shall include:

"(a) duties to avoid discrimination,

(b)duties to protect the interests of the individuals for whom services are provided,

(c)duties to the court,

(d)duties to avoid conflicts of interest, and

(e)duties of confidentiality".

The commission will prepare the code under this guidance. The code will be published and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
I hope that the amendment demonstrates that I intend the highest ethical standards to apply, and to be seen to apply, to lawyers who may be employed by the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be so good as to give us some idea of the conflicts of interest which are mentioned in subsection (2)(d). Taking subsections (5) and (6) together, may we be quite sure that the code will not come into operation until it has been approved by the Lord Chancellor and by both Houses of Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's second point, that is certainly my intention. As to his first point, which concerns duties to avoid conflicts of interest, the one that most instantly comes to mind is where two defendants are being tried in the same trial and by reason of the nature of their defences there is a conflict between the two and it would be
592
inappropriate therefore for them to be represented by the same salaried defender. That is the best illustration I can offer.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept that I rise to speak in no adversarial spirit but simply to ask one or two questions as I am not clear as to what the answers might be.
A code is clearly desirable and necessary. I have no particular comments to make about the code as set out in subsection (2) of the amendment. However, drafting a code is not all that difficult. Indeed, many of us in our time have drafted codes of professional conduct for various legal bodies. The problem arises when one comes to enforcing the code. It is about that matter that I want to ask some questions and I have no ulterior motive in doing so.
I take "duties to avoid conflicts of interest" as an example. With a salaried defender, whose task will it be to detect whether a fellow employee is suspected of a conflict of interest? If someone detects it or suspects that there is one, to whom will he report it? When he reports it, it presumably goes through a chain. To whom will it go? Where does the chain finish? Who will then adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the salaried defender has been in breach of his duty to avoid a conflict of interest? What sanctions will be available against a salaried defender who breaches the code in that or any other way? Is it to be a question of an employer-employee relationship and a matter eventually perhaps of an industrial or employment tribunal if someone is wrongfully dismissed; or is it to go a rather different way; and if so, how will it get there? In other words, will a solicitor salaried defender find that in some way or other the matter will reach the Law Society and it will be for its disciplinary body to deal with the issue? If he is a barrister salaried defender, will it in some way be a matter that will reach the Bar Council or his Inn of Court?
I should be grateful for assistance on these matters. As I say, drafting a code is one thing but making sure that it works is absolutely crucial.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it will be apparent to your Lordships that, following the chiding I received from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having spent too long winning the amendment on the fourth day of Committee, I had descended into a deep sulk. But I feel it is only right to acknowledge my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for having done what he undertook to do in producing this new clause.
I, too, would like to know the answer to the question of enforcement because that was one of the problems which was raised in Committee. But, subject to that inquiry, I repeat my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for carrying out what he undertook to do.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I wish to say a few words because the point about enforcement is something that I envisage coming before the courts themselves. It must be of great importance that someone like myself who tries crime all the time should know

593
whom to approach if there should be a breach of the code. There is a duty to the court, but what is the court to do about it? I therefore think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have raised a point that should exercise the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as indeed it will exercise the minds of the judiciary.
6 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I want to raise one small question in the light of the point made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that this code, which I am delighted to see following the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will apply to those employed by the commission whereas independent practitioners will be governed by their own professional requirements—presumably the Bar Council and the Law Society.
Is it the understanding of my noble and learned friend that the codes by which the independent practitioners will be governed are "similar" to the statutory code or "identical" with it? If they are only "similar", is not there a risk of discrepancy in treatment between the independent practitioner and he or she who is employed by the commission? For example, in the same case there may be a Queen's Counsel who is an independent practitioner working with a junior who is a member of the criminal defence service.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for welcoming this amendment; after all, it was his idea, though I strongly supported it in principle.
I am asked about who it will bind. Primarily, the duties are duties imposed on employees of the commission—salaried lawyers employed by the commission. The new clause provides,
"The Commission shall prepare a code of conduct to be observed by employees".
I would envisage that compliance with the code would become a term of the contract of employment and would be enforceable in the same way as an employer may enforce any term of a contract of employment.
Some noble Lords drew attention to the fact that a breach of the code might, at the same time, be a breach of the professional rules either of solicitors or barristers depending on whether the employee in question was a solicitor or barrister. Enforceability would be through the contract of employment and very often it might be the case that a breach of the code would amount also to a breach of the individual's professional code.
Today, if a judge feels strongly that there has been some ethical lapse on the part of counsel before him, he is free to draw it to the attention of the head of chambers or the disciplinary body of an Inn of Court for it to consider whether or not to take the initiative. Similarly, a court would be free to communicate its concern or displeasure to the head of the criminal defence service and, likewise, could complain to the Inn of Court or the Law Society according to whether it was a barrister or a solicitor. Those are the best answers that I can give to those questions as at present advised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Regulations about payments to representatives]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123:
Leave out Clause 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Terms of provision of funded services]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 11, line 26, after ("made") insert ("and what that person or body is to do with them").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, 1 hope I can deal briefly with what are technical amendments, relating to moneys received as a result of an order made under Clause 16(2) that an individual for whom services are funded by the Commission as part of the criminal defence service is to pay some or all of the costs of representation.
Clause 17(4) states that any amount received by the commission pursuant to an order under Section 16(2) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund, which is the Government's principal bank account at the Bank of England.
Amendment No. 124 is necessary so that any persons or bodies other than the commission through which these sums are handled--for example, magistrates' courts or debt collection agencies—can be directed what to do with sums collected pursuant of an order. Regulations will ensure that the sums arrive in the Consolidated Fund in an efficient way, subject to proper financial controls. This might not involve payment being routed through the commission. Amendment No. 125 deletes Clause 17(4) which becomes otiose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Funding]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Foreign law]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert ("unless any such law is relevant for determining any issue relating to the law of England and Wales.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128, all of which are amendments to Clause 18. The first is designed to ensure that the wording of Clause 18 does not prevent the legal services commission from providing help under both the community legal service and the criminal defence service where there are factual issues of foreign law which arise in proceedings in England and Wales.
In Committee we were fairly inundated with examples of situations where issues of foreign law might arise, and I am grateful to your Lordships for bringing those to our attention. I believe that this amendment provides for those and other similar situations, where we would wish to provide help.
The other two amendments refer to the process by which the Lord Chancellor may make exceptions to the general provisions of this clause. Clause 18 provides, in

595
general, that the legal services commission is restricted to funding services under the community legal service or criminal defence service only in relation to matters of domestic law. However, the commission should be able to fund services in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to fulfil the United Kingdom's international obligations. For example, the REMO (Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders) agreement obliges us to provide legal aid for the enforcement in this country of child maintenance orders made in foreign courts under foreign law. Whereas previously the clause allowed the Lord Chancellor to make exceptions by direction, these amendments provide that exceptions shall be made by order subject to the negative approval procedure. That mirrors the arrangements under the existing Act.
I have always been in agreement with your Lordships on the purpose of this clause; I hope that we can now agree on its wording. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("directions given by him under section 4") and insert ("order").
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("by the directions") and insert ("in the order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("apply to") and insert ("limit the disclosure or).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think 1 can be fairly brief in speaking to these amendments, which I promised to bring forward in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. in Committee which he kindly agreed to withdraw in the light of my undertaking to reconsider the drafting of Clause 19.
The noble Lord was concerned that the present wording of Clause 19(3)(c), taken with the provisions of Clause 19(1), appeared to suggest that information which was otherwise subject to client/lawyer privilege could be disclosed or be required to be disclosed. As I explained in response to the noble Lord, that was certainly not the intention of the provision. Its purpose was simply to ensure that information given by the client to his lawyer was not subject to the provisions of Clause 19 at all and, therefore, that disclosure could not render the lawyer liable to prosecution under Clause 19(5). It was not intended in any way to breach the privilege from disclosure of information given to a lawyer by his client. I agreed to ask the draftsman to consider the provisions further in order to make their intent clearer.
The group of amendments standing in my name seeks to set out more plainly the intent of the provisions contained in subsection (3). The opening words of
596
subsection (3) of Clause 19 are amended to make clear that the provisions of Clause 19(1) do not limit disclosure of information of the kind described in the subsection. Sub-paragraph (c) is removed from subsection (3). A new section is added at the end of the clause which more plainly sets out that information provided to a lawyer by a client receiving funded services as part of either the community legal service or the Criminal Defence Service is not subject to the provisions of Clause 19. This information, of course, remains subject to privilege and the provisions of Clause 21(1) already ensure that the privilege is not affected by reason of the client being in receipt of funded services.
I hope that with these amendments I have met the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has indeed succeeded in that purpose. I am most grateful to him for having taken the original draft away and looking at it again. It seems to me that these amendments deal with the problem that I raised in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 12, line 36, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 40.
Page 13, line 2, at end insert—
("(7) Nothing in this section applies to information furnished to a person providing services funded as part of the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service by or on behalf of an individual seeking or receiving such services.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause
GUIDANCE
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may give guidance to the Commission as to the manner in which he considers it should discharge its functions.
(2)The Commission shall take into account any such guidance when considering the manner in which it is to discharge its functions.
(3)Guidance may not be given under this section in relation to individual cases.
(4)The Lord Chancellor shall either—

(a)publish, or

(b)require the Commission to publish,

any guidance given under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 23 [Orders and regulations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 14, line 21, after ("power") insert ("of the Lord Chancellor").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert
"(1A) Before making any remuneration order relating to the payment of remuneration to barristers or solicitors the Lord Chancellor shall consult the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society.
(1B) When making any remuneration order the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to—

(a) the need to secure the provision of services of the description to which the order relates by a sufficient number of competent persons and bodies,

(b) the cost to public funds, and

(c)the need to secure value for money.

(1C) In subsections (IA) and (1B) "remuneration order" means an order under section 7(3A), 13(2A) or I4(3A) which relates to the payment by the Commission of remuneration—

(a)for the provision of services by persons or bodies in individual cases, or

(b)by reference to the provision of services by persons or bodies in specified numbers of cases.").

[Amendment No. 135, as an amendment to Amendment No. 134, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 134 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 139:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) No directions may be given by the Lord Chancellor to the Commission under this Part in relation to individual cases.
( ) Any directions given by the Lord Chancellor to the Commission under this Part may he varied or revoked.
( ) The Lord Chancellor shall either—

(a)publish, or

(b)require the Commission to publish, any directions given by him under this Part.").

Page 14, line 23, leave out ("Regulations") and insert ("Orders, regulations and directions of the Lord Chancellor").
Page 14, line 25, after ("2") insert ("or 9 or paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3").
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 14, leave out line 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Conditional fee agreements]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 15, line 28, leave out from second ("agreement") to ("or") in line 31 and insert ("with a person providing advocacy or litigation services which provides for his fees and expenses, ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments makes changes to Clause 27 which I undertook to consider further in response to a number of amendments moved in Committee.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, moved an amendment with the intent of ensuring that there could be no doubt that a conditional fee agreement made between a barrister and solicitor on behalf of a client was lawful and enforceable. As I explained in Committee, the concern arises because barristers do not usually accept instructions directly from the public. A barrister is instructed by a solicitor on behalf of a
598
member of the public or some other body. The solicitor is considered the professional client and the member of the public or other body the lay client. The concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was whether Clause 27(2)(a) adequately encompasses conditional fee agreements made with barristers.
The first and third amendment in this group seek to meet that concern by amending the description of a conditional fee agreement so as to avoid referring to "client". The first amendment in this group changes subsection (2)(a) of Clause 27 so that it will read as follows:
"(2) For the purposes of this section and section 58A—
(a) a conditional fee agreement is an agreement with a person providing advocacy or litigation services which provides for his fees and expenses or any part of them to be payable only in specified circumstances."
The revised provision sets out more clearly the firm intention that any lawyer, whether a barrister or solicitor, may offer his services in specified proceedings as provided under Clause 27 and that any agreement made in accordance with Clause 27 and regulations made under it is lawful and enforceable. The third amendment in this group is consequential to the redrafting of Clause 27(2)(a) where the use of the term "client" has now been removed.
The second amendment in this group fulfils the undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whom I am pleased to see in his place, to consider the terms of his amendment to ensure that conditional fee agreements may not be allowed in any form of family proceedings. I do not think that I need to say more now than I did in responding to the noble Lord in Committee save to say that it pleased him when I accepted his amendment in principle and hope he will be equally pleased to see that the terms of his amendment have also met with the approval of the parliamentary draftsman.
The fourth amendment in this group reproduces that moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It seeks to increase the discretion given to the Lord Chancellor as to which bodies in addition to the designated judges, the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society he wishes to consult before he makes an order specifying proceedings in which conditional fee agreements may be made. I agree to consider his amendment further because I believe that the provision contained in the proposed Section 58(4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 inserted by Clause 27 is too restrictive. I am pleased to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I am able to accept the terms of his original amendment too.
I hope that I have managed to meet the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Meston and Lord Kingsland, with these amendments. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor for responding to my amendment in the way that he has.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am likewise grateful to the noble and learned Lord for responding so promptly and completely to the concerns of the family lawyers, who were worried about the terms of the Bill as originally drafted.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 15, line 45, after ("agreement") insert—
("( ) it must not be used in substitution for before the event legal expenses insurance cover;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the question of conditional fee agreements. It seeks to ensure that they will not take the place of already existing insurance cover for legal expenses.
Conditional fee arrangements are of course "after the event" insurance. However, many people have "before the event" insurance but often do not realise that fact. As my noble friend Lord Renton just pointed out to me, my amendment might have been easier to read had "before the event" been in inverted commas. I should be happy to accept that amendment. I stress that the amendment seeks to ensure that conditional fee agreements must not be used—on the original Marshalled List the word "not" was omitted—in substitution for before the event legal expenses insurance cover.
I very much support the principle of conditional fee agreements, but they must be only one of the options to be considered by a claimant. A claimant's solicitor has to look at the wider picture and to recognise that there is a potential conflict of interest because there will undoubtedly be a situation where a claimant's solicitor will secure additional remuneration if a conditional fee agreement is preferred. Yet, as I understand it from recent figures, there are 17 million before the event legal expenses insurance policies in existence. Often people do not realise that. These policies may be attached to domestic, household, car or even credit card insurance policies. I very much hope that there is some way in which we can ensure that where people already have this cover the claimant's solicitor is put under an obligation to see that it is that cover which is used to make sure that the individual is properly protected rather than a conditional fee agreement.
I speak on behalf of a number of solicitors who specialise in this area of insurance, as I have myself in the past. Their organisation is the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), the president of which, Martin Bruffell, who is an active practitioner and a partner in the well-known insurance litigation firm of
600
Berrymans Lace Mawer, is quoted in one of today's legal newspapers as saying:
"It seems to us that [conditional fee agreements] are being encouraged because it allows lawyers to add an extra sum to their bill if they're successful. That way, they get more money for the same job.
We believe it is fraudulent, or even negligent, for a solicitor not to look at all possible funding options before advising a claimant on what route they should take".
I know that Martin Bruffell and his officers in FOIL are raising with the Law Society the whole question of a new professional conduct rule which would apply here.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not only sympathise with the purpose behind the amendment but will actively seek ways in which my concerns can be addressed. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to speak to the other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 143 and 151. I seem to recall that in Committee the noble and learned Lord made a most helpful, constructive and thoughtful response to these amendments. I do not remember that just because it was the only occasion on which the noble and learned Lord responded in that way to one of my amendments. I believe the noble and learned Lord said in reply that he would be interested to receive a letter from the Law Society about the scope of the definition of "non-contentious business". The issue that the noble and learned Lord reflected on in some detail was how one could deal with, for example, a case being heard in an employment tribunal where there is no specific costs regime to which a conditional fee agreement could adhere.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had a chance to reflect further on this matter or whether he has had any exchanges with the Law Society since then. I readily accept that these amendments may not, in any case, satisfy entirely what he would wish to put in the Bill were he to be satisfied that something was necessary. It is with that series of rather open reflections that I leave the matter with him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments in this group seek in different ways to provide additional conditions to those contained in the Bill which would have to apply to every conditional fee agreement.
The first amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, seeks to insert a new subparagraph in the revised Section 58(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 contained in Clause 27. Section 58(1) provides that where a conditional fee agreement satisfies all the conditions set out in Section 58 it shall be enforceable. Section 58(3) provides for certain conditions which must apply to all conditional fee agreements. It is in this subsection that the noble Lord wishes to insert a new subparagraph after Section 58(3)(b) which provides that the conditional fee agreement must not be used in substitution for before the event legal expenses insurance cover.

601
This therefore makes a conditional fee agreement lawful only if it is not used in substitution for,
"before the event legal expenses insurance cover".
From one point of view, it must be a matter entirely for the individual to decide whether he will take advantage of an insurance product he has already purchased or whether for some reason he prefers to engage a solicitor on a basis that the lawyer will share with him the risks of litigation, and be covered specifically by insurance. As at present advised, I tend to think that this is a choice for the individual to make and not one for Parliament to make for him. On the other hand, I accept that the noble Lord has a point and I undertake to write to the president of the Law Society and enquire of him what the Law Society's view is of the duties of a solicitor who is minded to enter into a conditional fee agreement but who knows that his client already has insurance cover under a before the event legal expenses insurance policy.
I doubt that the market for legal expenses insurance is really at risk here, however. I believe that those who are inclined to insure against unspecified potential liabilities will continue to do so. If they had prudently gone to the trouble and expense of doing so, I would be surprised if they did not avail themselves of that which they had purchased when the need for it arose.
I have said, and I say again, that I wish to encourage greater use of legal expenses insurance because it is the cheapest and most prudent way—I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to hear me say this—to provide for a potential liability for lawyers' bills. I am sure that the marketing skills of the insurance industry, if properly applied, could achieve greater awareness of legal expenses insurance and increase the use of these products.
I have said to the noble Lord that I think he has a substantial point that the Law Society should address and I have given him my undertaking to write to the president of the Law Society. When I hear from the president I shall, with his permission, pass on his views to the noble Lord.
The second two amendments in this group are related. Amendment No. 143 is substantially the same amendment as was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which seeks to outlaw contingency fees. Amendment No. 151 responds in part to the reply that I gave the noble Lord in Committee when I pointed out that solicitors were allowed to use contingency fees in non-contentious business as defined by the Solicitors Act 1974. This amendment builds on Amendment No. 143 so that contingency fees used by solicitors would no longer be lawful notwithstanding that the Solicitors Act approves of their use. I dealt in some detail in Committee with the amendment to outlaw contingency fees, and I do not believe that it is necessary to repeat what I said then. I have not changed from the view I expressed in Committee when I invited the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to withdraw his amendment on that occasion. However, I expressed my concern in Committee about the use of contingency fee agreements in cases before employment tribunals. I have taken up this matter with the Law Society and I am
602
currently considering some preliminary representations that it has made to me on this matter. This is an area in which I continue to take an active interest. I repeat that I do not want to see contingency fees introduced in relation to cases before the courts. I think that there is a crucial difference between arrangements where the lawyer charges his normal fees in the event of success, together with an uplift which is subject to a statutory maximum, and arrangements where the lawyer's direct interest is an agreed percentage of the damages recovered. The two are quite different. That, too, is the view that the courts have taken and continue to take. Contingency fees are at common law unlawful and unenforceable. The Solicitors Act 1974 prevents a solicitor from using a contingency fee in contentious business before the courts. I therefore believe that, employment tribunals apart, the law is sufficiently clear on this point and I am not persuaded of the need to legislate in this area.
But I entirely accept that the situation relating to employment tribunals needs careful thought. The Government, however, are looking at their obligations under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights before reaching any conclusions. This issue needs to be addressed in that context. As I said in Committee, we cannot simply consider the position of employment tribunals and related issues of costs or publicly-funded support to take cases to those tribunals in a piecemeal fashion. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his undertaking. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 145 to 147:
Page 16, line 18, leave out from ("proceedings") to end of line 20.
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("to his client").
Page 17, line 5, leave out ("authorised bodies (if any)") and insert ("bodies").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 17, line 9, after ("subject") insert ("to subsections (OA) and (6B) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 148 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150, 152 and 154 which stand in my name and are part of the same group. These amendments bring back a series of amendments debated at Committee stage. I bring them back because I believe that they are of considerable importance. I am aware that a number of others both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere agree with me on that. The amendments concern the right of a successful party who has been funded by a CFA to recover from the losing party both the top-up that he has agreed to pay to his solicitor or

603
barrister over the normal fees that are payable and the insurance premium that he has purchased to cover the liability to pay the costs of the other side.
The Bill now provides that a costs order may, subject to rules of court, include an order for payment of enhanced fees—the top-up—and the insurance premium. They are dealt with respectively in Clauses 27 and 28. In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that there should be a presumption in favour of including in the costs order the top-up and the premium. However, he also said that it was desirable to retain a certain degree of flexibility as is the case with an ordinary costs order where costs normally follow the event but there is power to direct that they should not do so. I believe that the presumption should be the other way and that the premium and the top-up fees should not be added to the costs order unless there is a clear justification for doing so. There are two reasons for this. The first, and I believe more important one, is that such a costs order will be unfair to the losing party. A claimant who has reasonable means and wishes to bring proceedings has a choice. He can accept the normal risk that if he loses he will have to pay his own costs and those of the other side, or he can in effect insure himself against that risk by entering into a CFA with his own legal advisers and by insuring against the risk of having to pay the other side's costs.
One may ask why the losing party should have to pay extra because the claimant has chosen to protect himself against the normal risks of litigation. That may result in the loser paying three sets of costs: his own, the other side's normal costs and what may be up to 100 per cent. by way of top-up, and also the successful party's premium. Not all losing parties are big corporations with deep purses. Not all losing parties have behaved unreasonably in contesting the proceedings. Indeed, the stronger the case of the unsuccessful party the more he will have to pay if he loses because in such circumstances it is likely that the claimant's top-up fee will be larger. The top-up fee is larger in difficult cases than in easy ones.
I believe that here there is a plain and simple principle that if a claimant chooses to litigate and pay to protect himself against the normal risks of litigation the defendant should not be saddled with the costs of that protection. I recognise that the claimant does not always have that choice. The claimant may not be able to afford to take the risk of losing. The claimant may have no real alternative but to enter into a CFA. In such a case it may well be unfair to the claimant to deprive him of part of the damages that he has won in order to pay the top-up or the costs of the premium. These amendments cover that.
The second reason why I believe that losers should not normally be asked to pay the top-up fee and the premium is that it will encourage people who can afford to pay their own costs to go for a CFA instead. The incentive is obvious. If one loses one pays no fees and no costs; if one wins one gets back one's own costs, the top-up and the policy premium. Therefore, it is a case of heads I win and tails you lose. But CFAs have quite serious defects. Among them is the fact that they lead
604
to conflicts of interest between the lawyer and the client. The more money that lawyers have invested in working on a case the greater will be their interest in settling that case even on terms that are unfavourable to the client as long as their costs are recoverable.
Secondly, CFAs will reduce choice because many smaller firms will not want to expose themselves to the additional risks involved in CFAs, and CFA work will go to the big claims firms such as Thompson's which can spread the risk. CFAs have a useful role to play in providing access to justice, but that does not mean that they should be encouraged where access to justice is available without them.
The most serious argument against the amendments is that they will encourage satellite litigation. That is not something I would wish to see. However, I believe that with properly drafted rules there is no reason why satellite litigation should be encouraged. The main issue is likely to be whether a successful party could afford to litigate without recourse to a CFA. Someone wishing to claim recovery of top-up fees would no doubt have to submit a sworn statement of his own assets and liabilities to show that he could not have afforded to risk paying the costs. There is no reason why the accuracy of that statement should be investigated, or why there should be cross-examination on it. Of course if someone deliberately conceals substantial assets, and that fact is subsequently discovered, quite properly he would run the risk of prosecution for perjury. By giving sufficiently careful thought to the drafting of the rules, I believe that it is possible to eliminate most of the risk of satellite litigation arising.
The Bill as drafted is unfair to losing parties and will encourage the use of CFAs when they are not needed and not desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to a great extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his attempt to ensure the costs awarded after conditional fee decisions have been made.
I think it is only right to remind your Lordships that, apart from the circumstances of conditional fee agreements, costs in civil actions have always been at the discretion of the court and the taxing master. It is right that that should be so because there is a multitude of different factors that the court, and rather less the taxing master, are entitled to take into consideration.
I much admire the effort of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, what I have suggested is summed up in Amendment No. 154 in the new subsection (2) which states:
"An order may be made under this section only if the court thinks it just in all the circumstances".
I repeat: "all the circumstances". That is the great variety to which I referred. I suggest with all humility and respect that instead of accepting the amendments, at Third Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should have a provision written into new Section 58A which makes it clear that even in conditional fee cases the court will have that full discretion which otherwise prevails.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know from our debate on conditional fee agreements that I welcome them in principle. I find myself in agreement with the comments of the the noble Lords. Lord Goodhart and Lord Renton.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may recall that I pointed out that for public bodies and public companies facing a number of actions the arrangement in effect asked for them to pay for the cases they had won through payment not only of the success fee but also of the insurance premium in those cases they lose. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has introduced a further element: I share his concern. It is to some extent mitigated by the validity of the arguments adduced by the noble Lord. Lord Renton. Perhaps we should find some way of returning to the court the discretion that the court has always had to intervene in cases where it is just for the court to do so.
I speak to Amendments Nos. 149 and 153 which concern yet one further element which has caused concern to the Forum of Insurance Lawyers. Hitherto, parties to an action have usually known how the claim is funded. At the outset, a notice of civil aid through the legal aid certificate is exhibited to the court, and notice of its existence is served on the other party. I am concerned that we are now dealing with a range of possible funding mechanisms. A person facing a claim will not know how the claim is being funded. My amendments provide that notice is given, in particular where a conditional fee agreement exists.
The funding could be through legal expenses insurance, in some cases through legal aid, conditional fee agreement, trade union assistance, or private means. It could be a range of factors. The sort of person to whom the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has referred who faces a claim, needs that information in order to assess his chances of recovering costs. Public bodies, public companies and private individuals need that information. My comments apply to Amendments Nos. 149 and 153.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in the course of these debates, it is rare to find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, I have some reservations on this issue, and they are as follows. One would have to give advance notice to the opponent of the level of success fee. Who would benefit from that? It would be the insurers.
My preferred course would be to engage in more consultation on the issue before adopting the course proposed by the noble Lord. The issue may be better dealt with by rules of court or regulations. I hope that my noble and learned friend will respond to that point.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in many ways we are in an odd position. For many decades, the conditional fee arrangement was unenforceable as it was considered contrary to public policy. All of a sudden a halo has been placed around this form of activity and if one indulges in it one receives a bonus, which is quite contrary to principle.
606
If conditional fees were not available, and if (as I am sure would be the case) I could not afford the litigation upon which I am about to embark and 1 raise a large loan from my bank in order to fund it, no one would have thought for a moment that if I won the case I could include the interest which I pay on the loan. I suppose the classicist would say that res inter alia acta, it has nothing to do with the essential principles of damages and costs. That is why I resist the suggestion that there should be a presumption in favour of the premium and the uplift being repaid. That is why I put my name to Amendment No. 154, which seems to he supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It provides that the court retains a discretion and, in deciding how to exercise it, has regard to the matters set out in the amendment. Accordingly, I would support that as a way of dealing with the problem.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments bring onto the face of the Bill considerations that the court should have in mind in determining the liability for any success fee and insurance premium that a person using a conditional fee agreement should recover from his opponent.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 to Clause 27 impose on the court a number of considerations before it can make the success fee recoverable, including such things as the hardship towards the person liable to pay the costs and the extent to which the case could have been funded without using conditional fees. Amendments Nos. 152 and 154 to Clause 28 impose similar constraints on a court before it can make the insurance premium recoverable.
As I said in Committee, I consider that these matters, to the extent to which they need to be dealt with at all, are matters far better suited to be dealt with in rules of court. I continue to be very concerned that they would, in effect, establish satellite litigation while arguments were made about whether, for example, a person could have afforded to take a case without using conditional fees or an insurance premium and about considerations that had led the court to its conclusion.
I am afraid that there is an issue of principle between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He would like the presumption to be the other way around and to provide that the insurance premium and the success fee should not be added to the defendant's liability unless there were specific justification for doing so. He says that it is unfair to the losing party.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, comes to a similar view from a different standpoint. He says that conditional fee agreements used to be stigmatised as unlawful, but all of a sudden a halo has been put around them. Of course, the noble and learned Lord will be the first to know that Parliament sometimes has to step in and remedy the deficiencies of the common law and Parliament is sovereign. The noble and learned Lord asks, "What if there were no conditional fee agreements and I had to go to the bank and be put in funds to bring litigation forward? I would not in the ordinary way recover the interest I had to pay on the loan". Of course he is right. He says that that would be reason to res inter alia acta. Another way of looking at it might be to say,

607
"The problem arises from the impecuniosity of the plaintiff and that should not be visited on the defendant. But it is possible for Parliament to take a different view and that is what we invite Parliament to do. The costs of the insurance premium and the uplift are costs that he had to incur in order to gain access to justice and they are costs incurred as a result of a wrong which has been done to him by the defendant".
For my own part, I do not see it as in any way unfair to defendants who have wronged plaintiffs to be liable for the full costs which the plaintiffs have had to incur in order to secure redress.
I believe that the simpler course would be to allow the normal rules on costs to apply. That is a presumption that costs will follow the event of the judgment, but—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton—with a discretion to the court to vary this in appropriate circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also seek to place provisions in the statute with which I can have sympathy in general terms, but which I believe are more adequately dealt with in rules of court. He seeks to amend the proposed Section 58A(6) so as to prevent the success fee being recoverable unless notice has been given as prescribed by rules of court and to amend Clause 28 in a similar way in respect of the recovery of the insurance premium.
If it assists the noble Lord, I am quite sure that it will be necessary to specify in the rules of court not only that a notice that a conditional fee agreement is being used and backed up by an insurance premium must be given to an opponent, but also when that must be given and when a person using a conditional fee will be required to set out in a notice to his opponent the success fee that is being claimed and the amount of the premium incurred. That is why the provisions of subsection (6) and Clause 28 are expressed so that recovery is subject to rules of court. For those reasons, I do not believe that the additional words he seeks to include are necessary.
I am prepared to consider further the concerns which lie behind the amendments contained in the group when drafting the necessary rules of court. As I have made plain, there is simply a difference of principle and judgment between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I abstain from speaking to Amendment No. 155 because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not spoken to it in this group. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which my amendment has received from other Members of your Lordships' House. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I would be entirely happy had the noble and learned Lord accepted my amendment to the extent suggested by him and no further. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to go even as far as that.
However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that Parliament is entitled to impose an obligation on a losing party to pay the top-up fees of
608
the successful party. That is beyond question. It certainly has the power to do so. The real question is whether it is fair to impose such a rule and I must say that nothing the noble and learned Lord has said has induced me to change my view that it is not fair to do so.
Although my views have not changed on this issue and I still believe it to be both serious and important, I do not intend to press it to a Division. I can only hope that the rules will be drafted in a way which gives the courts power to do justice. In my view, justice will involve not requiring a defendant to pay a top-up where, for example, the successful party is clearly a person of considerable wealth who has chosen to go for a CFA rather than run the risk of paying the cost of litigation which he can well afford.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Recovery of insurance premiums by way of costs]:
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Replacement of ACLEC by Consultative Panel]:
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 17, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) In appointing persons to the Consultative Panel the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Consultative Panel includes persons who (between them) have experience in or knowledge of—

(a)the provision of legal services;

(b)the lay advice sector;

(c)civil or criminal proceedings and the working of the courts;

(d)legal education and training;

(e)the maintenance of the professional standards of persons who provide legal services;

(f)the maintenance of standards in professions other than the legal profession;

(g)consumer affairs;

(h)commercial affairs; and

(i)social conditions.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment sets out criteria which must be taken into account when appointing members of the legal services consultative panel. It is substantially the same as the amendment on this subject moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in Committee.
As the Lord Chancellor said in that debate, we would expect in appointing members to the panel to have very much in mind the factors suggested by the noble Baroness, and he accepted that that was an omission in the Bill as drafted. We are genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness for her assistance on this point, and indeed her valuable assistance on the similar matter of the composition of the legal services commission. The Lord Chancellor promised the noble Baroness in Committee to move a government amendment to bring

609
about the same effect as her own, and I am grateful for her prior indication that she is happy to accept what is proposed.
The noble Baroness spoke persuasively on that occasion about the need for such criteria, and I need not repeat what she said. She said it very eloquently. I agree that the panel will need a balance of experience and expertise among its membership, including knowledge in consumer affairs, in order to carry out its duties effectively and with due regard to the needs of all users of legal services.
I turn now to the differences, such as they are, between the noble Baroness's amendment and the government amendment. In Committee, I mentioned one flaw I found in her amendment. That was the technicality that one criterion referred to the maintenance of professional standards among banisters and solicitors. Of course, authorised advocates and authorised litigators are not limited to banisters or solicitors. That particular criterion has now been redrafted to refer to,
"persons who provide legal services".
On consideration, it has also been decided that there is another gap that needs to be filled. Therefore I have added another criterion: that it would be desirable for those with experience in, or knowledge of, legal education and training to be represented on the panel. The reason for this is that the panel will have a key role in maintaining and developing standards in the education and training of providers of legal services. It will have an ongoing programme of work to provide recommendations on legal education, as ACLEC does now. The panel will be far better equipped for this task if it includes members with actual experience in or knowledge of this area.
The eagle-eyed will also have spotted a small difference in the first line. This now refers to,
"the desirability of securing that the Consultative Panel includes persons who (between them) have experience in or knowledge of",
the specified areas, rather than,
"the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in, or knowledge or,
those areas. This is a drafting amendment designed to clarify that there is not statutory requirement for all of the members to have knowledge of or experience in all of the specified areas. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have reason to support the amendment but there are two points on it on which I should be grateful for the attention of the noble and learned Lord. The first concerns why a provision has been included and the second why something has been omitted.
Paragraph (f) refers to:
"the maintenance of standards in professions other than the legal profession".
That is a huge subject. One can think of all the other professions that there are and the different circumstances which prevail in those other professions. I believe that it is asking almost the impossible to appoint someone with such knowledge. I believe that that provision should be left out.
610
Secondly, in training people in legal education, which is what this is about, we must bear in mind that although our legal profession has to an inevitable extent been centralised upon London, nevertheless, decentralisation has become a great feature of it in the past 50 years. I am glad to say that work which was frequently done in London is now done out on circuit. I cannot think of the exact phraseology, but some knowledge of the work of the profession outside London, out in the provinces--in Wales and so on—is desirable among members of the consultative panel. Perhaps that could be included at Third Reading.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, although I have written a letter to say that I agree with this proposed amendment, as I am in my place I wish to support Amendment No. 156. As we have heard, we now have user views represented on the body which is making decisions about meeting legal needs—the legal services commission—and we also have guaranteed user representation on the body advising the Lord Chancellor on the education and conduct of those providing legal services; namely, the consultative panel.
I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that those three important voices will be heard on the two new bodies created by the legislation. Indeed, that completes my set. I shall not quibble about the technical points and in view of the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton, I must not stay on my feet too long in case someone snatches my points away from me. Therefore, on the two issues with which I am particularly concerned, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If issues were to arise in relation to the maintenance and standard of other professions, some information or evidence could be garnered in order to satisfy the consultative panel's requirements on that particular issue. But I fail to see why it is necessary to have someone who has experience or expertise of the standards of other professions represented on the consultative panel.
I am delighted for the noble Baroness who has obviously had unique success in these deliberations. Good luck to her.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. First, he asked why paragraph (0 is included. He asked why we are saying that people on the consultative panel should have,
"(between them) experience in or knowledge of … the maintenance of standards in professions other than the legal profession".
It seems to us that in judging what should be the standards of the legal profession, it is appropriate to ensure that they are at least as good as the standards in other professions. It seems to us to be right also that one should have regard to how other professions are dealing

611
with the problems which may face our profession. It would be helpful to have a broader perspective. That is why that provision has been included.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I understand that it may be necessary to acquire evidence about those matters but it seems to me that the provision is extremely wide. The number of professions involved is immense and certainly it would be virtually impossible to have somebody who would be in a position to speak for the standards of so many professions. Is it not better to leave it, as suggested in my earlier intervention, on the basis of garnering evidence where necessary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of paragraph (f) is not that every single other profession must be represented. It is sufficient that there is some knowledge of other professions. Although one may hear evidence, one tends to know rather more about matters of which one has personal knowledge. We are merely saying that when lawyers think about their own profession, there should be representation by somebody who has some knowledge of other professions. It seems to me that that is sensible and preferable to relying upon the giving of evidence to the panel.
On the second point made by the noble Lord, namely, should one make a reference about the provision of legal services outside London, we regard the words,
"(a) the provision of legal services",
as covering the whole of England and Wales. It would be inappropriate to have on the panel people who are aware of the provision of legal services if their knowledge did not extend to knowledge of the provision of services, not in every part of England and Wales, but in London, the provinces and the system as a whole.
I hope that that meets the point that was made. We do not intend to return with any other amendments. We are aware of the point. We think it is important and we hope and believe that it is covered. I think that that deals with all the points. We are grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the progenitor of the amendment and for my noble friend's support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 17, line 45, after ("services);") insert—
("( ) the duty of giving such advice as it thinks appropriate to the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Civil Justice Council established under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 with a view to ensuring that conditional fee agreements are being implemented fairly and in the interests of justice;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if passed, this amendment would insert into Clause 29 an express duty on the part of the legal services consultative panel, in effect, to monitor the effects of conditional fee agreements.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it was an established principle of our system until very recently that conditional fee agreements—a form of contingency fee agreement—were considered to be contrary to the public interest. One of the classical summations of that principle was made by Lord Esher in a House of Lords case in 1895, where he said that such arrangements were incompatible with the "honour and honesty" of the legal profession.
Before the Lord Chancellor under the previous government introduced a measure of conditional fee arrangements, a considerable investigation into all aspects of conditional fees was carried out by the Bar Council. In 1990 the council produced a long and considered report that came down clearly against the introduction of conditional fees on the basis that they would,
"promote conflict of interest and a relaxation of ethical standards",
in the profession. At present, there is a working party set up by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, on which I serve, which is looking at the ethical aspects of conditional fee arrangements. A considerable amount of work has already been done and it is fair to say that the views of those in that working party are extremely wide and include a considerable level of concern about the potential effects of conditional fees upon the probity of the litigation process.
The two main areas to worry about, as has been said, are, first, conflict of interest and, secondly, malpractice. Conflict of interest is struck down almost every month in the courts in other situations and in an amendment earlier today it was included as one of the matters to be part of the code of conduct—that is to say, a duty to avoid conflict of interest. However, we have some acute conflicts of interest which are simply inescapable in conditional fee litigation.
First, there is an acute conflict between a solicitor and client in setting the amount of the uplift. In those circumstances, most clients will be in the hands of their solicitors, who will have all the knowledge and experience of the law and will be in an overwhelmingly strong position to get their way. The limited amount of research done by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), at the behest of the Lord Chancellor, indicates that of the 197 cases at which it looked, it thought one-third of them gave signs of an exaggerated uplift on the part of the solicitors' firms involved. One of my colleagues told me only yesterday that it is also quite possible for clients to be inclined to pervert the system by refraining from telling a solicitor, to whom they go for a conditional fee arrangement, crucial facts in relation to the claim in the hope and anticipation of depressing the amount of the uplift.
There are also equal and opposite conflict risks in the course of the litigation process especially concerning how quickly or slowly one strikes a deal with the other side. Given that a solicitor may be on double fees, in certain circumstances if the case is a strong one, an unscrupulous solicitor could string out the litigation, knowing that ultimately he is bound to win and that the longer he strings it out the more the double fee will be worth. In other circumstances, it can work the other

613
way. For a solicitor to accept a low offer of settlement from the other side in circumstances where the case is very uncertain, and therefore the risk of going into court is grievous on the part of the solicitor, can work in the direction of encouraging a solicitor of weak character to recommend a settlement to a client that should be refused.
The malpractice side is simple and gloomy. There is a temptation to suppress evidence that is inconvenient to the case, particularly if it arises rather late in the day. There could be a letter, a report or a witness who, after a vast amount of input by the solicitor, would scupper the case if such evidence were revealed to the other side. It puts grave temptation in the way of that solicitor, especially when egged on by the client, to allow the conditional fee arrangement to work as it does.
There is also considerable temptation to fabricate evidence, most particularly oral evidence; to hone, polish and embellish oral testimony in a way that ultimately becomes a perversion of justice. Again, one must realise that the temptation is not all on one side. In that circumstance, the client too has a strong temptation to manipulate the solicitor at the start of the case and to connive with the solicitor en route. That represents a conspiracy by solicitor and client against the public interest and justice as a whole.
It is not as if the era in which we live is one in which solicitors and banisters are unaware of the commerciality of the work that they do. The whole tenor of the development of "lawyering" in the late 20th century is towards an extremely hard-nosed business approach, in which winning has become paramount, to the danger of the judicial and litigious process. I suggest that we are not in a climate where one needs extra incentives for solicitors to do a proper job. An irony of the conditional fee arrangement is that the Government have put it forward as being needed in terms of preventing lawyers spinning out cases improperly and of taking on bad cases when they should not. It is strange that the moral turpitude which they say justifies conditional fee arrangements will he stimulated and given wider scope by those conditional fee arrangements.
Like a number of people both inside and outside this Chamber, I should like to express a great deal of unease about the impact of conditional fees over time. Perhaps I may make it clear that there will be no sudden lapse of probity and honesty within the profession. I am a great admirer of the degree to which high standards are upheld. Equally, it is fruitless to pretend that there will not be pressure on probity and that, as time goes by and does its work, little by little that pressure on probity could lead to a serious collapse in the very high standards which we currently enjoy in this country. It is, in effect, to keep an eye on that and to prevent a sort of dry rot starting in the litigation process that this amendment is directed.
I emphasise that my wish, and the wish of those who have put their name to this amendment—I refer to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Archer of Sandwell—is to put on the face of the Bill
614
a specific duty on the part of the panel to keep an eye on the development of the conditional fee arrangements and, in so doing, to work with the Civil Justice Council which was established two years ago under the Civil Procedure Act. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will accept that the proposed wording of Clause 29, which seeks to incorporate a new Section 18A into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, is not adequate to ensure that that monitoring takes place with sufficient certainty and priority. The wording of what will be new Section 18A(2)(a) does not make it clear that the duty of the consultative panel can extend to anything which is not part of the "programme of work", as it is called, approved by the Lord Chancellor.
I am aware that the next amendment. Amendment No. 158, has been tabled by the Lord Chancellor in an attempt to improve the position somewhat. However, I venture to suggest that it does not. I repeat that the requirement to publish recommendations made by the consultative panel can extend only to those brought forward by it in relation to a programme of work approved by the Lord Chancellor of the day. We are saying that this is a sufficiently important matter that it requires a specific duty to be placed on the face of the Bill. It is on that basis that I beg to move Amendment No. 157.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have expressed in the past, in Committee and earlier on Report, some apprehension about conditional fee agreements, but much more about their availability and about ensuring that access to justice is realised than about some of the considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has introduced into the debate. It is true that I have referred to some of those considerations, but I feel that the noble Lord has taken an unduly gloomy view on the issue of probity and the profession. There are some concerns, which I share, that cases may he settled when it is seen to be more in the interests of the lawyer than of the client, but one must not gainsay the fact that at present lawyers give their clients the most careful advice on such issues, particularly with regard to payments into court.
Having said that, I am concerned to ensure that the most careful invigilation and monitoring are undertaken with regard to the way in which CFAs may evolve. They are still at the embryonic stage of their development. It is most important that the question of the availability of adequate insurance is included in that.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in seeking to ensure that we arrive at a situation whereby the Lord Chancellor is able fully to appraise the position himself, with the benefit of his advisers. Even more important than that is the fact that we, the public, should have some knowledge so that we can ensure that access to justice is not being inhibited but is being improved as a result of the enhancement of this still new development in the law.
It is clear that anomalies could be thrown up during an investigation and that they will need to be addressed. It is right that Members of both Houses of

615
Parliament should be aware of that. However, it may well be that what my noble and learned friend is suggesting in Amendment No. 158 will cover such issues. I am not entirely satisfied that the wording covers the anxieties which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and myself. However, I am concerned with the practical consequences as much as, if not more than, with the ethical considerations with regard to monitoring.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is pushing at an open door here. The Lord Chancellor chided me from some three or four days ago, so he will no doubt forgive me if, in response, I tease him. I know that he will feel that this is grossly out of date, but on 7th April 1989 he addressed his predecessor's suggestion of contingency fees. He said this—it is very short, very impressive and is really the last word on this subject in relation to this amendment:
"The Green Paper's sole suggestion to improve access is to promote the idea of speculative actions by lawyers on some contingency basis. I regard contingency fees in any shape or form, however diluted, as abhorrent".
Then Hansard records noble Lords saying, "Hear, hear!". No doubt encouraged by that support, the noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"The argument that professional standards are so high that there would be no risks does not impress. Lawyers are ordinary human beings. No lawyer at the front end of litigation should be in the position that the ability to pay next month's mortgage turns on the outcome of the case. Litigation turns on advocates being trusted by the courts and by one another to play fair. Flirting with contingency fees is another gimmick to avoid state responsibility and to secure justice on the cheap. Like so many bargain basement practices, the lawyers would be no exception to the risk that shoddy standards would result".—[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1326.]
I think that that is deuce to the Lord Chancellor!
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I had not intended to speak this evening. I had intended only to listen and perhaps to learn a little. However, I was absolutely astonished by the noble Lord's speech on what purports to be a detailed amendment. In fact, that speech was entirely opposed in principle, and at some length, to the whole concept of conditional or contingency fees. I was a parliamentary candidate 25 years ago and I am well aware that the Liberal Democrat Party, of which the noble Lord is a nominee, is extraordinarily blinkered. It is astonishing that someone should make a serious speech on the subject of conditional fees—he accurately described them as contingency fees—without even mentioning the United States, which has a large and important economy. It operates a common law system which is very similar to our own and where contingency fees have successfully operated for a very long time.
I lived and worked in the United States for eight years of my adult working life. The point that the noble Lord and others who think like him should seek to understand is that the great advantage of
616
contingency or conditional fees is that it is possible for anyone to obtain redress from the courts. There was an example last week. A smoker successfully sued one of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world; namely, Philip Morris. I certainly agree with the judgment that the settlement was much too large. But because there are contingency fees it is possible for anyone in the United States to obtain redress in the courts.
However, in this country there are no contingency fees and the losing side pays the costs. It means that people without legal aid do not have access to the court. That is one of the crying scandals of British justice. I remember a good old joke being told 25 years ago that the British courts are rather like Claridges. It is open to everybody, but one must be able to afford the fees.
I do not wish to make a very long speech, but I wish to make two quick points on what the noble Lord said. He quoted Lord Esher in 1875. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but that is what he said.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I said 1895.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I am sorry and I stand corrected. The noble Lord quoted Lord Esher from 1895. The point is that very powerful mores were operating at that time. There was a very powerful and explicit code of behaviour which meant that people behaved in such a way that the courts rarely had to be used. Therefore, in consequence of that code of behaviour, which no longer exists, we have a system which assumes that most litigation is vexatious. In turn that means that there is a bias against all litigation. That is something which this Bill seeks to put right.
The noble Lord also quoted the 1990 Bar report. He said that it was critical of conditional fees under two heads; first, the relaxation of ethical standards and. secondly, a conflict of interest. I do not know what that Bar report actually said, but I can certainly assure the noble Lord that he did not prove his case under either of those points.
I praise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing in conditional fees. To some extent it does something to redress the fundamental problem with the British court system, which is that it is open to very few people unless they are legally aided. This amendment seeks to dilute to the point of destruction the concept of conditional fees. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, made that abundantly clear. I strongly urge that the House does not approve this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he really suggesting that we should copy a legal system in which one can obtain damages of a couple of million dollars or a contingency fee, for spilling a cup of hot coffee over oneself?
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, there are certain excesses in the American legal system. The point is that it is possible for an individual to gain redress against

617
even the most powerful corporation. The case to which the noble Lord referred involved an unemployed housewife who managed to sue McDonald's successfully.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to apologise to the Ritz Hotel to which his reference applied and not Claridges?
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I stand corrected.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moving this amendment, I became progressively more depressed. He seems to have a much dimmer view of the ethics of his own profession than I have myself. But towards the end of his speech I was encouraged because he seemed to perk up a little and expressed a more optimistic view about the ethics of his profession.
He made the specific point—I do not know how much truth there is in it—that clients have a tendency to mislead their solicitors under conditional fee agreements in order to secure agreement to a lower uplift. It is possible that clients mislead their solicitors when they try to get legal aid. It may be that solicitors will he even more astute in their own interests to assess the true strength of cases when they are considering whether, and under what terms, to enter into conditional fee agreements than perhaps to protect the Legal Aid Fund.
I welcomed the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth. It is salutatory to remind the House that lying behind all this is the expansion of conditional fee agreements, which signals a colossal expansion of access to justice. I welcome the noble Earl putting that on record again.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has had such affection for my speeches over the years. I had the impression that he must have a complete library of them. I am ready to be quite flattered. I never knew that he cared so much.
He described what I said in 1989. I am minded to invoke what I believe a Victorian judge said when taxed with a previous decision he had made from which he had intellectually parted company in his own mind when sitting in an appellate court. He said something along the lines, "That is how it appeared to me then, but it is not how it appears to me now". If great judges can get away with that, mere Lord Chancellors can as well.
I have no difficulty in accepting the principle that the operation of conditional fee agreements should be kept under review to enable us to know that they are working well and are serving the interests of justice. I am very happy in principle for the panel to give me advice. I doubt that we need this amendment on the face of the Bill. However strong our concerns are today, they will not necessarily be the concerns of tomorrow. In five years' time conditional fees may be of little concern. They may be a familiar part of the
618
geography of our legal system with their operation accepted as part of legal services. That is my view of what will happen.
I do not see any point in imposing a duty in perpetuity on the panel to monitor conditional fee agreements. But I am willing to give a commitment to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I shall ask the panel to give advice on the operation of conditional fee arrangements as part of its first year's programme of work. I shall also ask it to consult the Civil Justice Council and to continue to review its work on an appropriate regular basis until we can all be assured that conditional fee agreements are working as well as we intend and in the interests of justice. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not incorporate this amendment because, as I endeavoured to explain, the present wording of Clause 29, in so far as it introduces new Section 18A(2)(a) into the 1990 Act, does not extend to a compulsory duty on the part of the panel to give the advice.
The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, made an extremely good speech on a point that I had not made. I was not arguing whether conditional fee arrangements are good or bad. We have them and that is a fact. The only issue is whether we have regard to the potential for their undermining the probity of the litigious process. If he wants to harp on America, I think that would be one's most vivid concern as to what contingency fees or conditional fees can do to the whole process. Over a million contingency fee cases were started in America last year. The level of reward for the lawyers is such that the American Bar Association and the American Trial Lawyers' Association go into rabid overdrive when, as occasionally occurs, an American citizen seeks to bring a referendum to strike down contingency fees, as happened in California two years ago. It is precisely because these conditional fees will prove to be extremely popular with my profession, for whom I repeat I have the highest regard, that I know that there is an acute public interest in the maintenance of the honesty of the litigious process. It is extremely easy for a few rotten apples to become a greater number of rotten apples.
I say again to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am disappointed. I am mildly comforted by the fact that he will instruct the panel to look at these matters. I would like to think that his prognostication was right. However, I suspect we shall find that conditional fees will grow and grow as a proportion of our total legal workload. Indeed, I hazard a guess now that contingency fees, full and unabated, will be before this House before five years are out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.42 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1999
7.42 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his appointment to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I had excellent co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I trust that there will be a similar level of co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, even though I expect that his comments on government policy will at times be robust and forthright.
The order appoints 24th February 2000 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end.
The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period and that it must end before 27th February 1998 (the first anniversary of the Act's passing) unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made such an order last year and, under that order, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 26th February this year.
The day appointed in any order must not be more than a year after the making of the order or more than five years after the passing of the 1997 Act. The day appointed by the present order is 24th February 2000.
Since last year's order was made, a great deal has happened in Northern Ireland. More political progress has been achieved than many people would have thought possible a year ago. This culminated in the Belfast agreement which was reached by the Northern Ireland parties on 10th April last year. All the parties to that agreement reaffirmed their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirmed their intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, and to use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of the agreement being endorsed, that is by May 2000.
In the agreement, the two governments undertook to take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process, including bringing the relevant schemes into force by the end of June last year, which we duly did. If we are to fulfil our commitment under the agreement it is essential that we extend, by this order, the period during which the scheme may declare an amnesty.
In December 1998, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) became the first paramilitary group to make use of the scheme, decommissioning what the independent commission described as a "small but significant" quantity of weapons. The Government welcomed this positive gesture: it represented another step towards a peaceful long-term future for Northern Ireland. The bulk of the weapons, however, remain in the hands of the paramilitaries. This is clearly unacceptable.
The Government have made clear to Sinn Fein and to the Loyalist parties that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement and that it must happen. It is time for violence and the threat of violence to be taken out of politics for ever and for all sides to demonstrate that they are totally committed to peaceful and democratic means. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for; that is what the people long for.
We are now entering a crucial phase in the political process leading up to the transfer of powers to locally elected politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Decommissioning, more than any other single step, would help to build the confidence necessary for these new institutions to operate. The way to achieve that objective, of course, is for the agreement to be implemented in full and for all the parties to live up to their obligations.
That is what the Government have been doing since last May. In that time, we have accomplished much: the assembly has been established; the reviews of policing and criminal justice have begun; the Northern Ireland Act has been passed; the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission are being set up; the accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners is being taken forward and there has been a steady but prudent normalisation of security measures.
Taken together, this represents a tremendous amount of progress, demonstrating beyond doubt the two governments' commitment to implement all aspects of the agreement. It is now essential that all parties move quickly to fulfil their commitments. That will mean a start to decommissioning; it will mean the executive committee being set up; it will mean early meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. None of this is going to be easy. Difficult decisions will have to be made, but I have no doubt that the will of the people is for these difficulties to be tackled and tackled now.
As I said, the Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. As part of that commitment, it is essential that we continue to provide the means by which terrorist weapons can be taken out of circulation. This amnesty period order is central to those arrangements. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, everyone who wishes to see the destruction of illegally held arms under the scheme provided by the Act to which the Minister has referred must surely wish to agree to this order, because unless the order is approved the scheme will lapse and there can be no means by which decommissioning—that is to say, the destruction and the taking out of use of these weapons—can take place. To that extent there is, of course, no contest.
However, for my part, I do not think that this occasion should be a pure formality. I suggest to your Lordships that there are two matters at any rate that ought to be referred to. The first, of course, has already been mentioned by the Minister, and that is that with one exception—welcome, but small, in the case of the LVF—no decommissioning has taken place at all. As we all know, this is undermining confidence. It is immensely serious. It cannot be claimed that the terms of the scheme are other than very generous and very comprehensive. The safeguards which the scheme provides go further than could reasonably be expected by anybody who had signed up to the agreement in good faith.
The retention of these arms is in conflict with the dominating theme of the Good Friday agreement, which appears on the very first page on the declaration of support. The theme is that all participants commit themselves, totally and absolutely, to peaceful means of resolving issues of political import. That is the dominating theme. It ran through all the discussions and is really the core of the agreement. You cannot claim that you are subscribing to that and fulfilling that commitment if you are, at the same time, retaining arsenals of weapons to fortify yourself.
I appreciate that the agreement is silent upon any specific date by which decommissioning has to begin. But, 10 months later, what prospect do the Government see of securing further decommissioning—in other words, what answer do the Government foresee to their repeated question of not whether, but when? Is it not a fundamental principle of the agreement that decommissioning shall take place? What is the remedy if it does not take place? Alternatively, put another way, what is the sanction if it does not take place? I have good reason to realise how difficult these judgments are and tonight does not give scope to the noble Lord to provide comprehensive answers. But the need for answers is burgeoning and cannot much longer be postponed if confidence is to be saved.
One other matter should be mentioned. It is surely right to salute this evening the dedicated, impartial and resolute efforts of General John de Chastelain, the chairman of the international independent commission set up under this scheme for the purpose of decommissioning. He has spared no effort over all this time in meeting the sensitivities of all those who hold these weapons and in getting decommissioning started. It is no fault of his that his efforts have been almost entirely spurned. I suggest that he deserves the greatest
622
credit and admiration—just as those who fortify their arguments with arsenals of illegal weapons deserve the most forthright condemnation.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the need for and the background to the order. The 1997 enabling Act was taken through this House by my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield during the time of the previous government. Because of the nature of the legislation--it is effectively an amnesty and severely limits the ability of the authorities to collect forensic and other information--there are strict time limits on the life of the order and on the Act itself, as explained by the Minister. Next week we will have the opportunity to debate the implementation of the Belfast peace agreement in detail. I therefore do not propose to say too much at this stage, but I welcome the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew.
I have no doubt that the order needs to be renewed without delay in order to keep alive the hope of an early start to decommissioning by all paramilitaries. I say "all" because it is not just the Republican groups which are failing to take advantage of the provisions of the decommissioning order. The so-called Loyalists have just as much to answer for. Indeed, if they all started to decommission as the Loyalist Volunteer Force did last year—a point mentioned by the Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew—the position of the IRA would become rather more stark. On the other hand, it might mean that the IRA would also find it easier to start decommissioning.
I would like to restate one of the principles from the report of the international body chaired by Senator George Mitchell. It was that the decommissioning process should suggest neither victory nor defeat; and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew touched on the sensitivities of decommissioning. The report went on to explain:
"The ceasefire and the peace process [that we arc now enjoying] are the products not of surrender but rather of a willingness to address differences through political means. This essential fact should be reflected clearly in the modalities of the decommissioning process, which should not require that any party should be seen to surrender".
In the event of effective decommissioning we would see a commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues.
We on these Benches welcome the Taioseach's helpful clarification of his position with regard to decommissioning. This afternoon in the Dail he said that there has to be decommissioning. We will not get an executive until that reality is faced.
In conclusion, we fully support the order and look forward to it bearing fruit and leading to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his kind words. I hope that I carry the House in paying tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who spoke from these Benches for the past nine years, a period in which the situation in Northern Ireland has been transformed.

623
The order extends for another year the amnesty period for handing in weapons owned by former paramilitaries. The original Act of 1997 went to great lengths to ensure that there was no possibility of forensic evidence being taken from any weapons which were handed in. We on these Benches accepted that as a necessity in 1997, and we accept it now. Stopping these weapons being used in the future is of overriding importance in these matters.
The Good Friday agreement took this matter forward and led to the establishment of the international body on decommissioning headed by General de Chastelain. As we all know, the agreement called for complete decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years. So, although it is acceptable to extend this legislation for another 12 months, when we come to renew the amnesty next February we do not envisage that it will be necessary to extend it for a further 12 months after that. We believe that the amnesty should be extended only as far as the deadline for decommissioning, as set out in the agreement.
In December, a very public decommissioning of weapons by the LVF led to the legislation being put into practice for the first time. I understand that it was a close run thing. For various reasons, the handover was delayed and the licence to transport the weapons was due to expire only a few hours before the weapons were handed in. Nevertheless, weapons were handed in; they were decommissioned and no forensic evidence was taken. The paramilitary LVF, when it gave up its weapons, went from being the pariah of Loyalist terrorist groups for having been so slow to call their ceasefire, to being one of the most respected groups. The whole operation gave the process in Northern Ireland a very welcome boost of confidence. Decommissioning can work, and it is working.
I mention the circumstances of the LVF handover in December for two reasons. First, to show that this legislation does work; all the mechanics of the decommissioning process were successful. For this we owe a considerable weight of thanks to General de Chastelain, who has done some very important, low profile work on the practicalities of the matter, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
My other reason for recounting the circumstances of the LVF handover is to explain that the process worked politically. The LVF was not laughed at or mocked for surrendering its weapons. In London and Belfast newspapers that day the word "surrender" did not appear at all. The LVF was not criticised or blamed. Instead, it was the object of much acclaim. Its actions were regarded as honourable and were very widely respected. It is a terror group that did not call a ceasefire until after the Good Friday Agreement. It is now viewed with esteem, which was unimaginable a few months before.
Decommissioning is not an easy business, practically or politically, for the manner in which the LVF decommissioned showed how both these matters have been resolved to the satisfaction of the terror groups. That is the message for Sinn Fein. It has everything to gain by decommissioning and everything to lose if it
624
does not. It should start to decommission sooner rather than later. Already every party in Westminster and every party in the Republic, except Sinn Fein itself, has called on the republicans to make a start on decommissioning. Even the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who has done so much to bring Sinn Fein back into the process, has called for a start to decommissioning.
If Sinn Fein is unsure about the best time to decommission, it should consider it in this way. If it decommissions just a few weapons before 10th March, it will take up its place in the executive amid a torrent of goodwill. If it delays a start to decommissioning until the deadline in the agreement for completing it, the process is sure to be in a much worse state than it is now. If it does not decommission and abandons the agreement that it made last year, the whole business could return to the dark days and the republicans would lose as much as everyone else. So it is in the republicans' own interests to start decommissioning sooner rather than later. I hope that they take heed of this debate and realise that at this point progress is in their gift and, I believe, in their gift alone.
Before I conclude, it is appropriate to mention loyalist decommissioning, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The absence of progress from the UVF and the UFF is as disturbing as the absence of progress from the Provisional IRA. They are out of the spotlight only because their political associates are not destined for a place in the executive. But we expect prompt action from them, too. If the IRA decommissions some weapons, loyalists should be aware that the clamour for them to decommission will be even stronger than the clamour for republicans to do so now.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there is little ground for not agreeing to the order as it is essential to the continuation of the peace process. As I shall not be able to attend the forthcoming debate on Northern Ireland, perhaps I may be excused for making some brief comments on the decommissioning issue.
Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that the huge majority of both communities in Northern Ireland want peace, prosperity and a normal life and are fed up with the posturing and the semantics of decommissioning. I ask the Minister this question. Is it not time that the Prime Minister took a cue from the interview in the Sunday Times with the Taoiseach in which Mr. Ahern, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, clearly indicated that the new power-sharing executive should not proceed without substantial decommissioning? In a further interview in the Irish Times today, he dissented from only one word in that interview. He certainly did not depart from the essential point that was clearly reported. Should not the Prime Minister now join the Taoiseach in confirming that real decommissioning, as defined by the Minister at Question Time today, is the only way forward in fulfilling the wishes and aspirations of that vast majority of people in all parts of Ireland?
The principal physical parties are now so entrenched in putting their parties before the peace process that one of them thinks that decommissioning is surrender and

625
the other one thinks that decommissioning is the road to democracy, power-sharing, devolved government and non-violence. In real life, everyone knows that decommissioning is neither of those, as modern technology in terrorist armouries and other easy access to weaponry offer many routes back to violence, if that is really what the tiny minority want to inflict on the majority in Northern Ireland and indeed on the people of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. It is time to end this charade and escape from the decommissioning cul-de-sac.
For the sake of future generations, the moment has now arrived, after months of prevarication, to appeal to all to compromise, to dig deeper for a solution and to seize this unique opportunity for genuine peace. The decision on decommissioning cannot be postponed much longer without disastrous consequences.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am entirely happy with the order as it stands. Nevertheless, it occurred to me during Question Time earlier today that it was perhaps just possible that this House was treading into slightly dangerous areas and was perhaps not quite exercising its usual prudence.
We need to bear two points clearly in mind. First, the Belfast agreement provides for a two-year period during which decommissioning can take place. That two-year period is a considerable way from being completed. Secondly, I think it would be unwise to try to establish unnecessary linkages between one set of circumstances and one process and another.
It does not quite become us to try to be the interpreters of remarks made by a neighbouring and friendly Prime Minister. What is important is that the two governments, in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, should continue, as they have now been doing for some time, to stand shoulder to shoulder and to see this process through to a successful conclusion.
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, can noble Lords count on their fingers and toes how many bullets and how many weapons have been handed in by the IRA since the Good Friday Agreement?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may deal with the specific points that were mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the prospects for more decommissioning taking place. We know of no immediate intention on the part of any paramilitary group to decommission. But to prove their commitment to peace, they must do so. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not a question of whether they will do so; it is a question of when. All the parties are committed to decommissioning because they subscribe to the Good Friday Agreement. It is up to them to prove that commitment in deeds, by decommissioning, and to do so soon.
The noble and learned Lord went on to ask what sanctions the Government have if there is not proper progress towards decommissioning. It was clear under the agreement that all the parties to it were committing themselves to decommissioning of arms, to be
626
completed in two years. If any aspect of the agreement is not working, there are provisions for a review of the agreement. But the Government are clear that this is not the time for such a review. It would not be appropriate to carry out a review at the present time. It is clearly something for which there is scope within the agreement if it was felt that that was the best way forward.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to the work and commitment of General Chastelain. He has shown a commitment in difficult circumstances. He has dealt with the people appointed by the various parties and groups as their link and I very much hope that he will soon have some successes to demonstrate. He certainly deserves our thanks for his commitment and dedication in what he is seeking to do.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to paramilitaries. Of course, it is not only one paramilitary group that must decommission; they must all do so. That is the commitment into which they entered and that is the demand we have the right to make upon them.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned that the LVF had already decommissioned and it is gratifying that it did so. But we want it to decommission the rest of its arms and all the other paramilitary groups to do likewise.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, urged that there should be real decommissioning and that the Prime Minister should take his cue from the Taoiseach in making statements. The Prime Minister has committed himself publicly on many occasions about the need for decommissioning. He has shown a commitment to achieving peace in Northern Ireland unprecedented in a Prime Minister of this country. That commitment remains and I know that he is ready to throw himself into this matter in any way that will help. It is not necessary for him simply to repeat anything that is said by the Taoiseach. His position is very well known and will continue to be stated clearly.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. for reminding us of some of the key aspects of the agreement and indeed it is proper that we should not seek to create linkages where none exist. That would not be the right thing to do, given that we have subscribed completely to the agreement. But that is not to say that we should not press the paramilitaries to decommission and to start doing so now.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, we have not had any decommissioning; there has not been a single bullet decommissioned by the IRA. It is a demand of them and the other paramilitaries that they should do so. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, this order makes it possible for decommissioning to happen. It is a precondition for further decommissioning for the next year and therefore it is necessary to have it so that people can hand in their guns and explosives. I hope very much that they will do so as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.42 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.42 p. m.]

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 29.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall publish—

(a)any recommendations made to him by the Consultative Panel in performance of the duty in paragraph (a) of subsection (2); and

(b)any advice provided to him by the Consultative Panel in performance of the duty in paragraph (b) of that subsection.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment obliges the Lord Chancellor to publish any recommendations and advice made to him in the course of pursuing its statutory duties under subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the new Section 18A which is inserted into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 by Clause 29 of the Bill. That is to say, any advice or recommendations made to him by the consultative panel about maintaining standards in professional conduct, and in legal education and training, made as a result of the panel's programme of work, or as a result of a specific request from the Lord Chancellor to consider an issue.
This amendment reflects a commitment made in Committee on 28th January (at col. 1212 of Hansard) to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who was good enough to withdraw his amendment on this subject in order that I might bring my own. Subparagraph (a) of this amendment has the same effect as the noble Lord's amendment. Subparagraph (b) extends the requirement to publish any advice given by the panel in response to ad hoc requests by the Lord Chancellor. I said in the earlier debate, and I say again, that I believe it right in principle to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and indeed to go further. The wording of the amendment as a whole has been expanded, to put it beyond doubt that there is a clear and specific requirement for the Lord Chancellor to publish such advice and recommendations from the consultative panel.
This Government strongly believe in open government. It is right in principle that an independent state-funded body should publish its advice. That is especially the case where the body's views may differ from those of its sponsoring Minister—in this case the Lord Chancellor. It is right that interested parties should be able to satisfy themselves that the body is giving reasonable and independent advice. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made this very point on the first day of Committee on 19th January (at col. 510 of Hansard).
In the case of the legal services consultative panel, I do not believe that there are likely to be any public interest considerations that might make publication of its advice undesirable. I therefore have no hesitation in seeking a statutory duty for the panel to publish advice and recommendations which it gives under these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has responded in this generous and refreshing way to my amendment. He has improved on it and widened its scope. As he said, he has struck another blow for open government and I thank him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Barristers and solicitors]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 159:
Leave out Clause 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, among the many qualities that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has and enjoys is that of a very shrewd politician. Occasionally he adds a magic touch. That is when he is at his most dangerous. His illusions then become almost credible. That is the position in regard to Clause 30.
What are the Government seeking to achieve in the long run by Clause 30? It is surely this. The Government wish to reduce substantially the cost of legal aid, and one of their main methods of achieving that is by block contracts. Solicitors tender for these contracts, many of which will oblige them to undertake cases from start to finish, including advocacy in the higher courts where that is the appropriate venue, at pre-determined costs. That will involve a considerable increase in the demand for solicitor advocates before higher courts.
What is then the problem? Since December 1993, when solicitors in private practice were granted by the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges rights of audience in the High Court, less than 1 per cent. of the profession—about 730 solicitors out of more than 78, 000 in private practice—have obtained those rights. To obtain those rights it was necessary to comply with tests or requirements laid down by the Law Society. When I moved that Clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, responded to those figures by saying, with his usual understatement:
"In my book, that does not signal a huge appetite by solicitors to become specialist advocates".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 996]
The Law Society had set the standards which, again in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had weeded out those who were no good.
On the third day of Committee (Hansard, col. 993), I drew attention to the very low pass rates by solicitors. For example, in 1995 the pass rate for civil tests was 28 per cent. I also drew attention to the statement of Professor Scott in 1996, when he was the Law Society's advocacy training adviser. that in his view,
"the papers that the test board has produced have provided a fair test on matters that advocates going into the high courts really ought to know about … Those who failed have in my view deserved to

629
fail. Indeed, often 1 have been astonished at the ignorance of some candidates, especially those doing poorly in the criminal test".— [OfJicial Report, 26/1/99; col. 994.]
Quite apart from the poor exam results and the fact that many of those who had achieved the necessary standard did not exercise the rights of audience which they had obtained, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was concerned by the slow take-up of the opportunity available to solicitors in private practice to appear in the higher courts over the past five years.
In Committee I drew attention to the research commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee and to the important reasons which appear to have been established: first, the uncertainties of listing of cases and results and the loss of time spent hanging around in law courts; secondly, the insufficiency of the volume of advocacy work; and, thirdly, the fact that barristers were generally cheaper than solicitors for most routine work.
This is where the magic of the noble and learned Lord came into play. How can more solicitors be encouraged to take up advocacy? Indeed, how can more solicitors be encouraged to obtain the appropriate rights of audience? In order to premedicate the great British public, upon whose hostility to lawyers one can always rely, a discussion paper was produced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in June 1998. In his foreword the noble and learned Lord stated:
"We accept that entry to the legal profession needs to be controlled, in order to ensure the maintenance of high standards which protect the public. But the right to maintain properly high entry standards to a profession must not be misused to impose restrictive practices for the benefit of those already established in the profession. There is a public interest in ensuring that properly qualified lawyers can practise their profession without being subject to unnecessary restrictions. The Government believes that unnecessary and unjustified obstacles still prevent solicitors and employed barristers from obtaining and exercising rights of audience in the higher courts".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not reveal to what restrictive practices he was referring, the "unnecessary restrictions" or the "unjustified obstacles". They certainly did not exist in relation to solicitors in private practice.
The foreword went on:
"The time has come for more radical change. Our view is that all qualified barristers and qualified solicitors should in principle have the right to appear in any court. We accept that the professional bodies, the Bar and the Law Society should be able to ensure that their members are properly trained to exercise these rights, and that they should be able to impose any rules of conduct necessary to maintain high standards. However, any such requirements should be tested against the public interest in allowing access to the courts, and ensuring that no unjustified restrictions are placed on the exercise of rights of audience".
What were these "unjustified restrictions", which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not think it was appropriate to identify?
The foreword continued:
"The independence of the legal profession helps guarantee civil liberties for the public. But this independence is not a justification for immunity from public scrutiny, or for the preservation of outmoded structures or practices".
Once again, there is no identification of the "outmoded structures or practices". There certainly were none in relation to solicitors in private practice. No one reading
630
that foreword would have suspected that there were in fact no unnecessary and unjustified obstacles preventing solicitors in private practice from exercising rights of audience in the higher courts. In particular, there were no outmoded practices or structures preventing the solicitor in private practice from enjoying rights of audience.
This line of reasoning—or unreasoning—was developed in the subsequent pages of the paper:
"In practice, however, only 624 solicitors, out of more than 70, 000, have so far obtained the Law Society's Higher Courts Qualification. Thus, barristers in private practice have retained an effective monopoly in the higher courts, and litigants there have no effective choice other than to employ their services"—
that is certainly not the fault of the barristers—
"As far as possible the choice of which lawyer represents a litigant in court should depend simply on the best interests of the litigant and on value for money; the choice should not be limited by out of date restrictive practices".
Again, there is no identification, the statement is unjustified and there is suppression of what was the true position on the ground; namely, that it is possible for solicitors in private practice who are competent and interested enough to obtain rights of audience in the higher courts.
I read on:
"The Government accepts that rights of audience should not become the subject of a 'free for all', and that these rights must generally be reserved to qualified members of the legal profession. However, the present position is over-restrictive".
One asks: in what way is that the case? Why were the Government so coy in the consultative paper about identifying the true position?
I read on in paragraph 2.5:
"The Government does not agree that the majority of qualified lawyers should in most circumstances be debarred from appearing in the higher courts, which is currently the case [paragraph 2.5]".
The debarring was self-imposed in relation to solicitors in private practice. Nowhere do the Government state the true position and explain that solicitors in private practice are either not interested in advocacy or do not have the competence to pass their own society's reasonable tests; nowhere is there any reference to the research work that the Lord Chancellor's own advisory committee has commissioned. All this material, which was suppressed, was to ensure the great illusion created by the Lord Chancellor that the Bar was operating,
"the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".
Those were words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, so ill-advisedly quoted from his brief when seeking to support Clause 31 which made reference to employed lawyers.
The drafting of Clause 30 masks its true intent. This was rumbled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who on the third day of Committee stage (on 26th January) referred to his correspondence with the Lord Chancellor on this matter. That is referred to in the Official Report at col. 998. This established that Section 30 was there to enable the Law Society to reduce its standards substantially in order to encourage the

631
reluctant to qualify for right of audience. In their memorandum to the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Benson the judges submitted:
"That which weakens or detracts from the standards and quality of the advocates necessarily, in the long run, weakens and detracts from the quality and standard of the judges".
I turn to the statutory objective set out in Section 17 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which is:
"the development of legal services in England and Wales (and in particular the development of advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services) by making provision for new or better ways of providing such services and a wider choice of persons providing them"—
I stress the next words—
"while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice".
In my submission, the Government in promoting Clause 30 are in breach of that statutory objective because they would be failing to maintain,
"the proper and efficient administration of justice".
I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to support the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner, in his amendment. I say that with a good deal of regret because he has supported a number of the amendments that I have moved. Indeed, in other respects I have supported some of his amendments. But I believe that the change in the law that results from Clause 30, while I doubt that it will do much good, is equally unlikely to do any harm and therefore it is not a matter that I feel it necessary to oppose.
In 1990 when rights of audience in the High Court were first made open to solicitors there was a fear in the Bar that solicitors would take over much of High Court advocacy and that leading firms of solicitors would pay in effect large transfer fees for successful members of the Bar to transfer to them and set up their own advocacy departments. That simply did not happen. Very few barristers have become solicitors in the past few years even though they can take with them their rights of audience if they do so. Some leading solicitors have joined the Bar.
The reason why more solicitors have not qualified as advocates—in this respect I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—is that basically they do not want to do advocacy. There are real advantages to solicitors' firms in employing banisters rather than setting up substantial advocacy departments of their own. I recall once asking a partner in a medium size London firm who were good clients of mine—it had perhaps 30 to 40 partners—how many different barristers the firm instructed during the course of a year. The answer was about 250. That meant that the existence of an independent Bar gave it access to a wide selection of expertise that not even the biggest firm of solicitors in the City could provide for its clients.
The experience of the past eight years has shown that the Bar is not at serious risk from the extension to solicitors of rights of advocacy. The Bar Council is not
632
opposed in principle to Clause 30. Speaking for myself, I have always believed that the Bar can stand as an independent branch of the profession without having exclusive or preferential rights of audience. That is the case in Australia and New Zealand, and I see no reason why it should not be so here. I do not see any great advantage in the change proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I do not believe that it will do any harm and I am therefore unwilling to oppose it.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before making up my mind on how I shall vote on this interesting amendment, I shall be interested to hear the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, if he is to reply, on what seems to me a significant assertion in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. He referred to correspondence that had passed between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and, I think, the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asserted that it was conceded that attempts had been made to encourage the Law Society to lower the standards of the examinations which they apply to solicitors who wish to acquire rights of audience in the higher courts. If that is so, it is a serious development and one on which I shall be interested to hear the Lord Chancellor's reply.
If the Law Society is not to be the most appropriate judge of the standards to be applied, who is? The same is true of the Bar. I have always held rather heretical views for someone who has held the title of Leader of the Bar and has had the honour to be Attorney-General. I felt that on the whole the Bar overestimated the degree of challenge and danger to an independent Bar if solicitors were allowed to acquire rights of audience in the higher courts. I held that view because I believe advocacy to be a profession, a skill and an art which one has to practise every day if one is to be at the top of one's form. In addition, I did not think that solicitors would find it sufficiently remunerating. I have always held that somewhat heretical view as someone who is a devoted admirer of the Bar and an upholder of the virtues and values of an independent Bar.
It is extremely important to know whether, in order to get more solicitors qualified, the Lord Chancellor has encouraged their professional body to lower standards of examination which it felt right to impose. I shall listen with great interest to that part of the Lord Chancellor's reply.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords. the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asks your Lordships to delete Clause 30 from the Bill. He has already persuaded noble Lords to delete the former Clause 31 from the Bill. On that occasion, he succeeded, I rather think it is worth noting, because of the votes of hereditary Peers, and because the Liberal Democrat Peers were unable to decide what to do given the deep split in their ranks between those who really belong to the banisters' party, QCs' section, and the remainder who are the true heirs of Cobden and Bright. I was not quite clear as to the

633
way the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, veered today, but it appeared to me to be reluctantly in the direction of Cobden and Bright.
Conservative Peers seem to have voted on the basis simply that it was an opportunity to vote against the Government regardless of the merits of the argument. I wonder whether any of them experienced a pang of regret once they realised what they had voted for. They had not been long enough in the Chamber to know. 1 note that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not in his place now. I had not previously thought of him, for example, as a leading defender of the privileges of the private Bar. But there it is.
And now I have my eye firmly on the Liberal Democrat Benches. On the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it clear that his party had no policy on how it should vote on the rights of audience issue; and he recommended it to abstain. So there is not a party policy other than to abstain. And even the policy to abstain cannot be adhered to because of the priorities of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, as a member of the barristers' party, QCs' section. He drove them into the Lobbies with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If even at this hour of the night, the noble and learned Lord seeks to test the opinion of the House, I suppose we shall see consistently the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, dutifully following the noble and learned Lord into the Lobbies, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, following the Government.
I wish to acknowledge that there was one notable exception to the conduct of the Conservative Opposition on the previous amendment. My noble and learned predecessor Lord Mackay of Clashfern voted for the Government, contrary to how his party voted—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He has confirmed my belief that the vote he is speaking about was the one which took place at the Committee stage, which the Government lost and we and some of the Liberal Democrats won. Will he remind the House that on that occasion only 75 members of his party and others voted for the Government? It was only 6.30 on a Thursday evening and the Opposition put in only about 85 Peers to vote. I do not remember seeing the noble Baronesses, Lady Scotland and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in the Chamber. I am sure that they had a certain interest in the matter, but perhaps they wanted to be away on that occasion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not quite understand the relevance of that intervention to the proposition that my noble and learned predecessor, who perhaps has some expertise in these matters—expertise which the 80-odd Conservative hereditary Peers who went into the Lobbies by definition did not have because they had not even listened to the debate—voted with the Government. I want to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will give way when I choose. I want to take this opportunity of
634
expressing my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his consistency and his characteristic unwillingness to engage in political opportunism. I now give way.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is spending much time and much energy—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: How long did you speak!
Lord Ackner: I spoke with success and I did not muddle up the two clauses. I intervened to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is spending time and energy on a battle we have already won, which is Clause 31. I am interested in his reply to Clause 30. With all his salutations to his predecessor, he overlooks the hostility of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to Clause 30. It was in relation to Clause 30 that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, went on to draw attention to the correspondence which he had with the Lord Chancellor demonstrating his anxiety that the result of Clause 30 was designed to reduce the quality of the restrictions on rights of audience. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor might consider at some stage dealing with that which relates to Clause 30 and not battles past and won.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that this really must be a first for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. This is the first time in 12 years in this House that I have heard him praise my noble arid learned predecessor Lord Mackay of Clashfern. And it has not escaped my attention that he has done so arid prayed in aid the noble and learned Lord only in order to criticise his successor.
Before I leave the battle which the noble and learned Lord has temporarily won, I will take this opportunity to say to your Lordships that the Government will seek to reverse that defeat in another place. I await with interest to see how the Opposition parties vote there.
Perhaps the Conservative Party wishes to be seen as a friend of the Bar and will again oppose the Government. If it does so, it may well be misunderstanding the true position of the Bar. I believe that the Bar Council is realistic and accepts the inclusion of the former Clause 31 in the Bill. It is only the noble and learned Lord who wants to defend the indefensilble. The present chairman of the Bar stated in his letter to the Financial Times of 3rd December:
"The argument is not now about who has rights of audience but about ensuring that advocacy is provided to a consistently high standard and at a competitive cost to the client".
With that, I agree. The Bar now needs to be protected from its would-be friends who want to remove essential clauses from the Bill.
I have a vision of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, emerging from the deep like some kind of latter-day LaocoÖn, declaring to the Bar, "I am still your friend", and the Bar replying timorously, "But

635
Desmond"—and they would say "Desmond" because one is wise to be cautious with LaocoÖns—"I do not really want to be your friend on this".
Most of Clause 30 is a simple re-enactment in a different form of provisions which are already in force under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The 1990 Act put rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation on a systematic statutory basis for the first time. It provided that professional or other bodies could be authorised under a statutory procedure to grant those rights to their members. Authorised bodies were also given the power to regulate the exercise of those rights by their members, subject to the requirement that their rules and regulations and any alterations to them should be approved.
At the time that the 1990 Act was passed, there were already two bodies whose members had rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation, or both—the Bar Council and the Law Society. Therefore, special provision was made for both of those bodies. The Act made both of them authorised bodies for the purpose of granting rights of audience and made the Law Society an authorised body for the purpose of granting rights to conduct litigation. Existing members of both bodies were deemed to have been granted the rights they already had and the existing rules of both bodies were deemed to have been approved. That was the effect of the legislation of our predecessors.
Clause 30 essentially continues those arrangements with one significant difference in relation to solicitors, with which I shall deal in a moment. The clause inserts a new Section 31 into the 1990 Act. Subsection (1) of the new Section 31 provides that all barristers are deemed to have been granted a right of audience before every court in relation to all proceedings. That is already the case under the existing Section 31 of the 1990 Act.
All barristers, including employed barristers, are currently deemed to have been granted full rights of audience when they are called to the Bar. But barristers can exercise those rights only in accordance with the rules of the Bar. Subsection (1) preserves that position. It provides that rights of audience are exercisable only in accordance with the qualification regulations and rules of conduct laid down by the Bar Council and approved under the 1990 Act.
Subsection (1) means, for example, that a barrister who has not undertaken pupillage may not exercise the full rights of audience that he theoretically has because he has not met the requirements of the Bar's qualification regulations. Similarly, a barrister may not exercise his full rights of audience as a barrister in private practice if he is not a member of chambers because he would not then be complying with the Bar's rules of conduct.
At present, the position of solicitors differs from that of barristers in that they are given rights of audience in the lower courts only on their admission to the Roll of Solicitors. They are granted rights of audience in the higher courts only when they have obtained the Law Society's higher courts qualification. If they obtain such a qualification, they are retrospectively deemed to have
636
been granted full rights of audience on admission to the Roll of Solicitors. But a solicitor who has not obtained the qualification does not have theoretical rights of audience to exercise in the higher courts unlike a banister in the equivalent position.
Despite that theoretical difference, banisters and solicitors are really in the same position as regards the exercise of rights of audience in the higher court. They may exercise such rights only if they have met the requirements of the relevant qualification regulations and comply with the relevant rules of conduct of their professional bodies.
Clause 30 will not disturb that position; on the contrary, it will make it explicit. However, Clause 30 will alter the theoretical basis on which solicitors exercise rights of audience by putting them on a par with banisters.
I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He might ask, "What is the point of doing that?" The answer is simple. The current position is a relic of the time when solicitors were thought of as second class legal citizens who could not be trusted to appear in the higher courts. There is no reason whatever why solicitors should not be put on the same theoretical footing as banisters. That change of emphasis may in itself encourage more solicitors to think of themselves as potential higher court advocates. However, Clause 30 will not, in itself, lead to any solicitor exercising rights of audience in the higher courts who does not already have such rights.
Subsection (2)(a) of Clause 30, therefore. provides that all solicitors are deemed to have full rights of audience in all the courts, but they may exercise those rights only if they comply with the qualification regulations and rules of conduct imposed by the Law Society.
I have said many times that I am as opposed to professional rules in relation to rights of audience which may be too lax, as I am opposed to rights of audience in accordance with rules that may be too restrictive.
This provision is not money-driven, although I have no objection to saving public money. It is quite untrue that my rights of audience reforms are driven by a desire to save money or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, put it, are driven by the Treasury. That is disproved by the fact that legal aid spending will remain at about £1.6 billion for the next three years.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke at some length about the failings of solicitors as advocates, about how many of them have failed the test for becoming a higher court advocate, and so on. I gently say to the noble and learned Lord that if barristers were initially confined to appearing in the lower courts and had to take similar tests before appearing in the higher courts, it might be interesting to compare their pass rate. However, of course, they do not have to take such tests. The day on which a barrister finishes his or her pupillage, he or she is eligible to appear before the Privy Council or the House of Lords in its judicial capacity or in a murder trial or a rape trial, regardless of his or her experience.

637
Such arguments are, in any case, strictly speaking irrelevant to this clause, as the clause leaves all the existing solicitors' tests in place. It is open to the Law Society now to propose changes to those tests, or to propose alterations in the way in which solicitors are trained. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, that it will remain open to them to do so after the Bill is passed. Contrary to what the noble Lord suggested, everything that I have said is in accord with my own hostility to rules which are too lax governing the acquisition of rights of audience.
Let me make it absolutely plain that I have no wish to see insufficiently qualified or incompetent advocates practising in the higher courts or anywhere else. The position under subsection (2)(a) will still be that solicitors can appear in the higher courts only if they have met the requirements which the Law Society imposes, just as at present. Solicitors will be in the same position as banisters. They will have full rights of audience in principle, but whether they can exercise them fully in practice will depend on whether they have complied with the relevant rules.
I believe that a specialist Bar will prove to be the most efficient means of providing specialist advocacy services in the courts. The experience of New Zealand and of Australia proves that. The Bar does not need to be cosseted by restrictive practices. In my view, it will go from strength to strength on its own merits. I am as proud of the profession from which I come as is the noble and learned Lord, but I have greater confidence than he in its capacity to flourish without restrictive practices. On that basis, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may agree with a great deal of what he has said, but there is one matter which, historically, I think that he should try to get right. My memory goes back as far as 1933, when I started practising at the Bar, and I was first elected to the Bar Council in 1938, so my knowledge of those times is not entirely inadequate. I assure the noble and learned Lord that in those days the assumption was that barristers should stick to what they were trained to do and should not usurp the functions of solicitors and that solicitors should not have a right of audience in the High Court because they were not trained to advocacy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is much to be said for sticking to your last, but I also believe that one can learn to work new lasts.
Lord. Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down again, may I redirect his attention to the question of fact which both I and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked him? The Lord Chancellor may have been constructing his entertaining notional conversation between the General Council of the Bar and Desmond arid it may have slipped his attention, but I asked him whether it was the case that he had urged upon the Law Society, or encouraged it, to reduce its standards for the higher courts qualification, perhaps in
638
the context of only 1 per cent. of its number having qualified. There may be very good reasons for his having done so and the noble and learned Lord dealt at some length with his views about rules of qualification being too lax or too severe, but he did not answer the question of whether he has encouraged the Law Society to reduce its qualification standards. I believe that the House would be greatly helped if he were to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I seem to recall that I sent a letter on this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I do not have it before me and so I wish to express myself very cautiously. I seem to recall that in that letter I said that the Law Society might well want to seek to change its rules but that, for my part, I would ensure that standards were maintained. Tomorrow morning I shall look out a copy of my letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and 1 shall send a copy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I can give a little assistance on that very subject because at col. 998 of Hansard of 26th January, which was the third day in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said:
"The point I am really anxious about is the next sentence"—
that is, of the letter from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—
"which states,
'I also expected that the Law Society will wish to propose changes to the requirements of its higher courts qualifications, in order to encourage more solicitors to take up rights of audience in the higher courts'.
What does that mean? How is one going to encourage more solicitors to take up rights of audience in the higher courts, having regard to the history which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has described? One way of doing it is to reduce the standard marginally or more than marginally. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, say that they want to have competent people. I am not quite clear how changes in the qualification regulations will encourage more solicitors to take up rights of audience unless these changes reduce the threshold or the standard. I should say in fairness to the noble and learned Lord that his letter continues,
`Having said that, neither the Law Society nor I have any desire to see badly trained or incompetent advocates let loose in the higher courts, and I will ensure that this does not happen"'.—[Official Report, 26/1/99; cols. 998–9.]
By my Motion I am seeking to return to the status quo, which involves solicitors adhering to the standards which have been laid down with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. I do not believe that that committee will be relevant in the future. I do not know whether the new organisation has to give its sanction to any regulations which the Law Society makes as regards rights of audience.. I think riot. I believe that that lies within the powers of the Lord Chancellor, hence my anxiety.
In reply to the other matters raised, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, overlooked one very important factor in referring to the fact that the Bar survived, despite its anxieties in 1990 and thereafter. It only survived because of the recession. That prevented solicitors from embarking on what they realised was going to be a loss-making activity for two or three years. By opening an advocacy department they would not be able to

639
employ, consistently and sufficiently, the QCs whom they engaged for some little time to come. When the recession came they had enough on their plate in coping with large rents, and by a whisker the Bar was saved.
I have listened with sadness to the fact that the Liberal Democrats will not support me. I believe that at this time of night the Loyal Opposition is likely to be otherwise engaged and, being a realist, in those circumstances, I do not propose to pursue my Motion at this stage.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Employers of Legal Services Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Authorised bodies: designation and regulations and rules]
[Amendment No. 162A not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 66, leave out line I and insert ("If the Lord Chancellor has decided to refuse the application he shall also").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments is a series of minor, and, I believe, fairly uncontroversial amendments to Schedule 5. They are all brought forward in response to points made in Committee. They are designed to refine the procedures contained in the Bill for dealing with the authorisation of bodies to grant rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation; the approval of applications by such authorised bodies to alter their qualification regulations or conduct rules; the use of the call-in power to alter the rules of authorised bodies; and the revocation of a body's authorisation to grant rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation.
I shall deal with four of these amendments, Nos. 163, 165, 171 and 173, together. They go to the same point and are all brought forward in response to a commitment which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to consider strengthening the Bill as regards transparency of decision-making under the schedule. The noble Lord moved a group of amendments originally which had much the same effect as these. They require me to give reasons automatically if I refuse an application for authorisation; refuse an application for alteration of conduct rules and qualification regulation; use the call-in power to order alterations to be made to the rules of an authorised body; or revoke the designation of an authorised body.
My expectation is that, generally, applications for authorisation and for rule alterations will be sensible, and that they will be approved, in accordance with the statutory objective. Similarly, my expectation is that authorised bodies will not seek to impose unduly restrictive rules regarding rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation on their members, nor that they will become unfit to retain their authorisation. So I will not, therefore, in the normal course of events, need to exercise the powers to impose rule changes or revoke authorisation. If I do so, it is right that I should be obliged to give my reasons. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who made the point in Committee that
640
such decisions may affect the relevant body, or its members, adversely, and that the reasons should be immediately available to enable affected parties to consider, for example, taking action by way of judicial review.
These amendments standing in my name are drafted slightly differently to those moved originally on this subject. The first three amendments have identical effect to their predecessors—the changes are ones of style only. The fourth amendment, which deals with the obligation to give reasons when giving notice of my intent to revoke an authorised body's authorisation, goes slightly further than its predecessor. The original would have required me to give reasons for revocation if the authorised body in question applied in writing. There is no reason, however, why the Lord Chancellor should not be required automatically to give his reasons, as he would be in the case of the first three amendments. He has therefore redrafted the amendment accordingly.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 168 and 169. These fill a gap left by an earlier group of amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which provided that the Director General of Fair Trading and the panel would be obliged to publish the advice they gave on applications made under the new Schedule 4. I was happy to accept the amendments. However, they did not cover Part III of the new Schedule 4, and the noble Lord accepted that Part III should be amended to achieve consistency with the other parts of the schedule.
I turn now to Amendment No. 164, which provides that the Lord Chancellor may not refuse to approve an authorised body's application to change its conduct rules or qualification regulations, unless it has been referred to the panel for advice. This arises from an amendment moved originally by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As I said in Committee, the purpose of bypassing the consultation procedure is to expedite the processing of an uncontroversial application. Were the application controversial—and by definition it would be so if the Lord Chancellor were minded to refuse it—it would be appropriate to refer it to the panel. It was always the intention that this would happen in practice, and I am happy that this should be put on the face of the Bill. I did not accept the amendment in Committee because we were unsure whether the drafting might not need revision. Two drafting amendments have been made to the noble Lord's original amendment, for clarity: "may" has been substituted for "shall" and "received advice" for "sought the advice". I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who at times during the course of his speech appeared to have become the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I wondered whether that was the purpose of the rather brief discussion on the Front Bench a minute or two ago; namely, that the Lord Chancellor was handing over his duties. But be that as it may, in whatever capacity the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was speaking, I am most grateful for the amendments which have been made. I am glad that the additional transparency will be provided for.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165:
Page 68, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor may not refuse the application unless he has received advice from the Consultative Panel.").
Page 68, leave out line 39 and insert ("If the Lord Chancellor has decided to refuse the application he shall also").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 69, line 4, leave out from ("Chancellor") to ("he") in line 6 and insert ("considers—

(a) that any of the qualification regulations of an authorised body may unduly restrict a right of audience or right to conduct litigation or the exercise of such a right, or

(b) that any of the rules of conduct of an authorised body may unduly restrict the exercise of such a right, ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 166, which stands in my name, and of Amendment No. 167, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, is to clarify which rules of conduct and qualification regulations of the authorised bodies may be subject to the use of the call-in procedure, set out in Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill.
As my the noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton indicated in Committee, in response to a previous amendment on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the Government agree that the call-in procedure should only apply to qualification regulations and rules of conduct which relate to rights of audience. But my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton—and there is no confusion of roles here—continued:
"the Lord Chancellor would go further than the amendment [tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland]. He has already said that he will look further at how the call-in power may be restricted, not to rules and regulations related to rights of audience … but to those which are "unreasonably" restrictive of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation".—[Official Report, 28/1/99; col. 1212.]
He noted that this was a point raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
Amendment No. 166, which stands in my name, is the Government's response. It will ensure that the call-in power may only be invoked if the Lord Chancellor considers:
"(a) that any of the qualification regulations of an authorised body may unduly restrict a right of audience or right to conduct litigation or the exercise of such a right, or
(b) that any of the rules of conduct of an authorised body may unduly restrict the exercise of such a right, ".
As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer emphasised in Committee on 28th January at col. 1213 of Hansard, provisions in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 restrict the definition of Rules of Conduct and Qualification regulations, for these purposes, to rules and regulations which relate to rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation.
There is one crucial difference between my Amendment No. 166 and the noble Lords' Amendment No. 167. My amendment will make it clear that the Lord Chancellor may only invoke the call-in procedure if he considers that the appropriate rules or regulations (defined, of course, in relation to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation) "may unduly restrict" those rights. In this respect it goes much further than the noble Lords' amendment. 1 note in passing that the noble Lords are content to give the Lord Chancellor a wider power. For my part, I think that it is right that the call-in power should be limited in the manner l have indicated.
Apart from that, I think the intention behind the noble Lords' Amendment No. 167 is very much the same as mine. However, with respect, I think that my amendment, as drafted, better accords with the terminology of the 1990 Act, into which Schedule 5 will be inserted as new Schedule 4. To take one small example, the amendment refers to
"a requirement as to the education and training",
whereas the amendment standing in my name refers to "qualification regulations". The rest of the schedule makes reference to "qualification regulations", which are defined in the 1990 Act as regulations as to the education and training which the members of the body must receive in order to be entitled to any right of audience or right to conduct litigation granted by the body. I therefore think that the first reference in the schedule should be to the generic term.
But the drafting points are small compared to my fundamental objection, which is that the noble Lords' amendment does not go far enough in restricting rne. Amendment No. 166, standing in my name, meets the commitment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton in Committee. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
I understand that if the House accepts my Amendment No. 166, the noble Lords will not be able to move their Amendment No. 167. But I hope, for the reasons I have given, that they will be able to support the amendment standing in my name.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 166 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 167.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I would be foolish not to take full advantage of the noble and learned Lord's enlightened generosity. In those circumstances, we shall not be pressing our amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 69, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Page 69, line 44, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 70, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall not decide to make the alterations unless at least two of the designated judges have advised him that the alterations should be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 170, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 172. With these amendments we come to what I believe are the last controversial amendments on the Marshalled List. They are, nevertheless, amendments of very considerable importance. Therefore, despite the lateness of the hour, I feel that I should speak to them, I hope fairly briefly.
The background will be familiar and I can outline it very shortly. Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 conferred three powers on the Lord Chancellor; first, the power to confer rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation on members of bodies other than the Bar Council or the Law Society; secondly, to veto proposed rule changes by the authorised bodies—that is, the Bar Council, the Law Society and other bodies authorised under the previous power—and, thirdly, to revoke designation as an authorised body of any body designated under the first power. However, the first and third of those powers could be exercised only by Order in Council adopted by the affirmative resolution procedure and, as matters now stand, all three powers can be exercised only with the agreement of each of the four designated judges who are the holders of the four senior judicial offices other than that of Lord Chancellor.
The Bill adds a fourth power, the power to impose rule changes on authorised bodies, and that also requires an order approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. However, the Bill also removes the power of veto of the designated judges, giving them no more than a power to advise. It is now generally accepted that giving each of the four designated judges an independent veto was a recipe for deadlock, but removing the veto altogether is another matter.
At the Committee stage amendments were moved to retain the judicial veto where at least three of the designated judges were opposed to the Lord Chancellor's proposals. Those amendments applied to all three of the powers that now exist under the 1990 Act and to the new one introduced by this Bill. The amendment is now being brought back in relation to only two of those powers; that is, Part III of the new schedule, which contains the power to order rule changes, and Part IV, which contains the power to revoke designation. I accept that the power to designate new authorised bodies raises constitutional issues of less importance and that the Lord Chancellor's veto over the rule changes means, at worst, that the rules remain unchanged. But issues do arise over the power to impose rule changes and over the power to revoke the status of a body as an authorised body.
On the power to impose rule changes, I accept gladly that Amendment No. 166, which has just been adopted by the House, constitutes a great improvement on the original draft. The unamended Bill gives power to the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules of conduct of an authorised body wherever he thinks it appropriate to do
644
so and in any respect. The new amendment allows those rules to be changed only to widen rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. That, I think, is much better. But I am still concerned with the issue of principle. The separation of powers and especially the separation of powers between the Executive and the judiciary is an essential principle of our constitution—a principle we shall be debating again tomorrow. The independence of the judiciary involves its control of its own courts and the right to control who can and who cannot exercise rights of advocacy before them. That right is not absolute. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out in Committee, rights of audience have been conferred by statute since at least 1836. But, so far as I am aware, in no case before 1990 have rights of audience been conferred by secondary legislation.
Transferring control from primary to secondary legislation involves a substantial transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well knows that. Secondary legislation cannot be amended; it is debated briefly even in the case of the affirmative procedure and by convention is not rejected by your Lordships' House. The Courts and Legal Services Act created a right to alter rights of audience and rights to conduct legislation by secondary legislation. But, in doing so, it applied a double key system. The judiciary, through designated judges, retained a right to block secondary legislation—not primary legislation, of course—which affected its control over its own courts. It is that second key which is being removed by this Bill. I do not believe that that is right, either in the case of imposed rule changes or in the case of revocation of statute.
The power to say that members of a body are to remove rights of audience is indeed draconian. I accept that the rules of the Bar Council or the Law Society would require primary legislation, but, even so, if the Lord Chancellor proposed to remove, let us say, the rights of ILEX, and three of the four designated judges thought that those rights should be retained, I would strongly suggest that primary legislation was needed and should be required. I ask the Lord Chancellor to accept that there is an important constitutional point here and that, even after Amendment No. 166, a modified right of judicial veto should be retained for Parts III and IV of Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I can be very brief in this matter. The procedures contained in the Bill to implement these powers are said to be simpler than those presently in existence, which are contained in the 1990 Act. That seems superficially attractive. But the facts are, first, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that they contain no requirement for the designated judges to approve an application before it can succeed. Secondly, in the case of any application to become an authorised body, the Lord Chancellor has only to consult with the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the Director General of Fair Trading. Again, there is no requirement that he must follow their advice or opinion. Thirdly, in the case of an application to amend an authorised body's regulations. the Lord Chancellor will

645
decide whether or not he needs to consult the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the Director General of Fair Trading. And again, there is no requirement that he must follow their advice or opinion.
We then come to the question of the power to revoke a body's authorisation—all of this concerns designated judges, who are the subject of this amendment—which has never been used. Under the present system, the Lord Chancellor may revoke a body's authorisation but he is required to seek the advice of his present Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, which has the power, until this Bill is passed, on its own initiative to recommend revocation under the present regime. Each of the approved designated judges must approve any proposed revocation before an order can be made. The proposals before the House remove that requirement.
Advice of the DGFT and the LSCP will be required to be obtained by the Lord Chancellor. Any revocation of a body's authorisation will continue to be subject to parliamentary approval. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposes to bestow on himself a new power to amend the qualification regulations and rules of conduct of an authorised body if he considers it desirable to do so. He is required to consult the Legal Service Consultative Panel, the DGFT and the designated judges before doing so. And his order will be subject to parliamentary approval. Accordingly, by this proposal, and entirely on his own initiative, the Lord Chancellor will be able to change any rules or regulations of any authorised professional body.
In this vital constitutional area, no proper reason or justification has been given as to why the Lord Chancellor needs these additional powers over a self-regulating profession which has been guilty of no transgression. Neither of the two legal professional bodies opposes the granting of audience rights to properly qualified and experienced persons. No proper reason or sufficient justification has been given as to why the Lord Chancellor is dissatisfied with any of the present rules of conduct or rights of audience that are presently operating. or as to why he needs such a general open-ended power as he presently proposes.
It seems strange that the Lord Chancellor—and it contradicts what he said earlier in the day—who was recently so successful and such a longstanding and reputable practitioner (he still is a reputable practitioner) should be so dissatisfied with his former profession that he has not mentioned that dissatisfaction to the Bar and given its members a chance to respond positively to the concerns that he raises.
The indisputable fact, as it seems to me, concerning Amendments Nos. 170 and 172 is that this proposed legislation will empower the Lord Chancellor, should he so choose—he may not so choose, but the power is there to be exercised by subsequent Lord Chancellors who may so choose—to reject all the advice that he may receive and to impose rule changes on the authorised bodies. All that the Bill does is to give the noble and learned Lord an option only to consult the Legal Services Consultative Panel, the DGFT and the designated judges.
646
It therefore seems to be the case that, in the face of the formulation of a new code, or the calling in of the rules, or of a revocation of the authority to grant rights of audience, or the enforcement of changes on a professional body, the only restraint that could be imposed in Parliament would be by affirmative resolution, and then only in respect of certain rules.
These procedures breach hallowed fundamental constitutional principles which safeguard against the concentration of power in the executive. That safeguard has been in existence since time immemorial. It separates the functions of the judiciary on the one hand and Parliament and the Government on the other. The proposed measures will cause that distinction to become blurred and will centralise power in the hands of that high office, the Lord Chancellor's office, if they become law. The concentration of power will, although not immediately, at some time be abused and misused whichever party is in power. Such power should therefore not be given solely to the Executive to be wielded by the noble and learned Lord, who will in effect be acting as a Minister and a judge, causing the role of the existing judges to be reduced to that of formal consultees whose advice may be ignored according to the whim of the executive.
I urge my noble friends and noble Lords on the Government Benches, the Cross-Benches, and the Liberal Democrat Benches to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It is important and fundamental. I believe that most of the parties here wish to see the Government's desire to reform and streamline the present system achieved; but they wish it to be done without breaching constitutional principles. Accordingly, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has proposed that the four judicial heads should act as a body and that the majority, with the Lord Chancellor, should prevail. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suppose that I must have been a reputable practitioner if the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, says so. I am very grateful to him.
We have debated before what role the designated judges—the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor—ought to play in the arrangements set out in the new Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which will be substituted by Schedule 5 to this Bill. Part I of the new Schedule 4 governs the approval of new bodies authorised to grant rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to their members; Part II relates to the approval of alterations in the rules of authorised bodies; Part III relates to the exercise of the new power to order alterations in the rules of authorised bodies; and Part IV governs the revocation of the designation of authorised bodies in certain circumstances. The powers to authorise new bodies, to order alterations in the rules of authorised bodies and to revoke the designation of authorised bodies can only be exercised with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, given under the affirmative procedure.

647
At present, decisions under the 1990 Act are taken by the Lord Chancellor jointly with the designated judges, each of whom has a veto over every decision. That system is not now defended by anyone, as far as I am aware. The effect of these two amendments would be that decisions in relation to Parts III and IV of the schedule would be subject to the requirement that the Lord Chancellor could only act if at least two of the designated judges agreed with him; that is, three designated judges would have a veto.
As I have explained, the Lord Chancellor's decision in these cases is already subject to the requirement of parliamentary approval. I do not consider it necessary or appropriate that his decision should also be subject to approval by two of the designated judges. Parliament is sovereign and the Lord Chancellor is responsible to Parliament as a Minister. In my view, no issue concerning the separation of powers arises. I believe that it is appropriate that Parliament should have the final say about rights of audience in the Queen's courts.
This view is not mine alone; it is shared by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, as they indicated at Second Reading. We weigh, as well as count, our supporters. The provisions in the Bill will still require the Lord Chancellor to take the advice of the designated judges in every case, and any Lord Chancellor would give great weight to that advice. I certainly shall. But the long and unsuccessful history of that cumbersome body ACLEC has persuaded me that radical change is essential. In the end, the buck must stop somewhere, and that somewhere is not with the judiciary but with the Lord Chancellor and, ultimately, with Parliament. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for the support which he gave to our amendments. As the Lord Chancellor will not be surprised to hear, I am disappointed by his reply. I believe that there is an important constitutional issue here. I believe that the settlement reached in 1990 was correct in principle, even if not in detail, and that the double key procedure set up in 1990 was the price that was properly paid for giving the Lord Chancellor power to do by secondary legislation what up until then could be done only by primary legislation.
However, it is now late at night. The supporters of the opposition parties have gone to find more entertaining ways of spending their evening. I notice the Government's duty squad sitting on the Government Benches. In those circumstances, I have no intention of pressing this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 70, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("or) in line 40 and insert ("If the Lord Chancellor has decided to make the alterations he shall also notify the authorised body").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 73, line 21, at end insert ("and of his reasons for recommending that it be made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Overriding duties of advocates and litigators]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 20, line 27, after ("act") insert ("with independence").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on two occasions during Committee stage to consider how Clause 35 might be strengthened to emphasise the obligation on advocates and litigators to act independently. I therefore move Amendment No. 174 and speak to the other amendment in the group which amend Clause 35 so that it now provides explicitly that those who exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation must do so with independence. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord's original amendment to Schedule 5 was intended to result in a wider statement of principle being included on the face of the Bill. That provided that the Schedule 5 powers should be exercised by all involved compatibly with the principle that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession should be preserved.
However, I have not changed my view that an amendment in such wide terms is unnecessary and would in any event not have the hoped-for effect. As the Lord Chancellor has said often before, he is committed to an independent and self-regulating legal profession. I hope that I have demonstrated that the principle of self-regulation does not come under threat from the Bill. The powers that are given to the Lord Chancellor by this Bill to change the rules of authorised bodies are strictly circumscribed as we discussed earlier in relation to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167. They can be exercised only after an exhaustive process of consultation with the explicit agreement of Parliament through an affirmative resolution. They may be used only in accordance with the general principles set out in Section 17(3) of the 1990 Act.
We remain of the view that those principles are well founded and comprehensive. We are committed to the principle that all advocates and litigators should be independent in the exercise of their professional duties. That is why Clause 35 has been included in the Bill. Clause 35 already places on a statutory basis the duty which all authorised advocates and litigators have to the court before which they are engaged to act in the interests of justice and the duty to comply with the rules of conduct of their professional body. However, I accept that the feeling of many of your Lordships is that there should be a signpost, as the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls described it, to demonstrate that this statute is framed with the maintenance of independence in mind. I accept it is right that the Bill should include on its face an explicit commitment to the principle of independence, and I beg to move this amendment accordingly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("(2B) Where any person who exercises before any court a right of audience granted by an authorised body is employed as an advocate and is dismissed from his employment, then he shall be regarded for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he acted in a manner which was not consistent with the best interests of the employer, or otherwise failed in his duty to his employer, when such action or failure to act occurred by reason of his compliance with either or both of the duties described in subsection (2A)."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that particularly in relation to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Borrie the House considered the position of employed lawyers and their right to represent their clients in court. I do not want to repeat the argument advanced then. But noble Lords may remember that the noble and learned Lord has some hesitation about giving rights of audience to employed lawyers in consultancy companies, accountants companies and the like. I still hope that I shall be able to persuade my noble and learned friend to extend the rights of audience also to those employed lawyers.
We have had the temporary demise of Clause 31 of the Bill. Therefore we have somewhat of a lacuna at present. Noble Lords opposite nod their heads. That is why the amendments have been attached to Clause 35; they marry naturally to the temporarily demised Clause 31.
In the amendments we seek to give further independence to employed lawyers in an interesting way: by making it a ground for unfair dismissal if those lawyers have been acting not in the best interests of their employers but, following their primary duty, to the court. Under amendments to the employment rights legislation, there are serious consequences for dismissing an employee unfairly. I can read at some length the penalties for unfair dismissal but perhaps noble Lords will accept them from me. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, nods his head vigorously.
The purpose of the amendments is to assist my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to uphold the rights of employed lawyers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is not in his place; I am not inviting him to come back. I feel strongly that lawyers, in whatever capacity, have total integrity towards the ethics of the profession. Any lawyer has a prime duty to the court; and he should serve that duty.
The amendment gives some fortification to that purpose. If an employed lawyer exercised his ethical duty primarily to the court to the disadvantage of his employers, the employer would be sanctioned seriously if he dismissed the advocate. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I support the amendment which stands also in my name. A key argument opposing the granting of rights of audience to employed lawyers is that they owe their first duty to their employer, and that only a freelance practitioner can be truly independent and give his or her first allegiance to the court and to justice. If that were true, the cause of justice would be seriously undermined by the daily
650
appearance of employed lawyers as advocates in the magistrates' courts and county courts and on tribunals and arbitrations.
It is said, "Ah, that may be so. Their appearance in those courts or tribunals may be for reasons of expediency. The pass has been sold. But it is essential that for the higher courts the purity of independent advocacy, free from the deleterious effects and influences of an employer, must be retained". I have not seen or heard in this House any empirical evidence to the effect that employed lawyers are somehow incapable of giving independent advice or observing professional integrity in their proper duty to the courts and tribunals before which they currently appear. In the public and private sectors, both of which I have experience of in terms of working with employed or in-house lawyers, I know and they know that they are paid to give the best of their professional advice and assistance, irrespective of whether or not that is the advice the employer wants to hear.
Clause 35 is intended to underline the fact that everyone who has a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, has an overriding duty to the court to act—and the Lord Chancellor has added "independently"--in the interests of justice. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hacking is designed to strengthen the natural professional instinct of the employed lawyer to do just that by giving him greater security of employment. The employer would know that if he were unwise enough to put pressure on a lawyer in his employment to do otherwise than act in accordance with his duty to the court and his integrity and to dismiss him for ignoring the employer's instructions, that would, ipso facto, be unfair dismissal under our general employment law.
We all know that the independence of the senior judiciary is protected, and has been for centuries. by the well-known rule and that it needs a vote of both Houses to dismiss them. Our atnendment has a similar purpose—to protect the independence of the employed lawyer. I shall not, certainly at this time of night, spend time expounding the many advantages to an employer in being enabled to choose either to use his employed in-house lawyer or an independent practitioner to conduct litigation and to engage in advocacy. But sometimes he will want to do that. He may want an in-house lawyer to conduct only interlocutory proceedings. He may want his in-house lawyer to be only the junior and the Queen's Counsel to be an independent practitioner. But I suggest that it is desirable to enable the employer to have freedom of choice, instead of being burdened by the present costly restrictions imposed by the Bar Council.
During Committee, I gave an example of a construction consultancy company which may want to use its employed banisters, who often have qualifications as engineers or surveyors, to act as advocates not just for itself but for its clients. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor courteously said that he was not inclined to go so far as that. Now is not the occasion to pursue the matter further. However, my noble and learned friend added that he did not rule that out for the future, particularly if one of the existing professional bodies changed its rules to allow such a development. If it is not

651
impolite, discourteous or contemptuous to say of my noble and learned friend that he may have had his tongue in cheek at that point, I tried to imagine the Law Society and the Bar Council changing their rules to that effect. I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hacking.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 176, which, as I recall, was treated with a degree of scepticism by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in Committee. This amendment would provide that where employers induced advocates to breach their overriding duties set out in Clause 35, it would be punishable as a contempt of the court concerned.
The amendment is complementary to Amendment No. 175 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It is important to ensure both that any employees who are dismissed for faithfully discharging the overriding duties set out in Clause 35 are entitled to compensation and also that adequate direct penalties apply to the employer concerned. The penalties would need to apply whether or not the attempt to induce advocates to breach their overriding duties succeeded and whether or not the advocate concerned was dismissed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should have thought that it would follow almost as certainly as night follows day that, particularly in the light of the amendments which have just been adopted, an industrial tribunal would find in favour of the advocate if he were put under such pressure.
I do not believe that it is right simply to talk about compensation in the light of the current law. Nothing is said in the proposed amendments about compensation other than by way of an implicit acceptance that the existing law in that respect is satisfactory as regards both amendments. I believe that it is necessary to offer rather more compensation. However, that is another issue. It is difficult to imagine a situation where an industrial tribunal could fail to support the advocate in such circumstances.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which is grouped with Amendment No. 175. It should be apparent on the face of the Bill that those who employ people to exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation are themselves answerable to the court if they exert improper pressures on those whom they employ.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has pursued his amendment. I regret that the arguments against its predecessor in Committee were frankly unconvincing. Of course, the lawyer who is an officer of the court and a member of a professional body should normally have primary responsibility for a breach of the overriding duties set out in Clause 35 as it now is. But the enlargement of rights and the use of employed advocates and litigators is bound to bring the risk that unscrupulous employers and their corporate alter egos or single issue pressure groups who are not subject to
652
professional rules or ethics will, from time to time, apply improper pressures on those who represent them. The lawyer cannot escape his responsibilities by blaming the client but the employed lawyer will not always be operating within the conventional relationship which exists at present between lawyer and client, as the Bill itself recognises.
However, I suggest that Clause 35, looks lame without any real sanctions. It should be made clear that employers and others are not immune simply because they do not have duties imposed upon them by Clause 35. I hope that the Government will look again at that problem.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these two sets of amendments are intended to strengthen the position of lawyers under Clause 35. They are directed particularly at the protection of employed lawyers, although the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. are not limited to employed lawyers.
Those amendments seek to provide protection to employed lawyers from pressure, primarily from their employer, in two ways: first, by making a new provision in relation to contempt, which is the route of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; and, secondly, by making certain dismissals automatically unfair, which is the route of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
I shall deal with them in reverse order; namely, with contempt first. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be aware, these amendments are not unlike amendments that he tabled in Committee. As I indicated at the time, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I thought the amendments that he tabled then were bad amendments. I explained in some detail why I thought they were bad amendments. I am afraid that, to the extent to which these amendments are different, I think they are worse than those tabled before.
What would first strike any reasonable person about Amendments Nos. 176 and 179 on the Marshalled List—I say this advisedly, knowing that these amendments have been drafted by no less a body than the Bar Council—is that they would create a new category of contempt which could be committed only by non-lawyers. The amendments apply only to persons who are not subject to the rules of conduct of an authorised body. So one could have the somewhat anomalous situation that the noble Lords urge upon us, that if a lawyer and a lay person behaved in exactly the same way, in the same case, by attempting to bring about a breach of another lawyer's duty to the court, the lay person is automatically guilty of contempt but under these provisions the lawyer is not. It may have nothing to do with the fact that it is drafted by the Bar Council. I realise, as I say, that the amendments were drafted by the Bar Council, but, even so, that seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition.
The revised amendments also seem to me to be confused about the requisite state of mind, or mens rea, on the part of the guilty lay person. They start off by saying that he is guilty if he intends to bring about a breach of a lawyer's duty to the court, or if he ought

653
reasonably to appreciate that his actions would be likely to bring about a breach of that duty, which suggests some degree of mens rea. The amendments go on to say that the lay person is guilty whether or not he knew, or ought to have known, that the conduct likely to be brought about constituted a breach of the lawyer's duty to the court. So I am left unsure what precisely a lay person has to think or know or intend before he can be found guilty of contempt under this provision. I suspect that this is an attempt to impose strict liability for contempt. If so, I do not think for one moment that that would be appropriate.
As I explained in Committee, one of the objections to these amendments is that they impose a liability for contempt on a lay person—presumably a client or employer—which would not necessarily attach to a lawyer even if he did breach his duty to the court. In other words, these amendments propose that you are guilty of a contempt if you urge the lawyer to do something which may not be a contempt by him. That is a very odd conclusion to reach. I made this point laboriously in Committee and it is a point that the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Meston, have perhaps sensibly not chosen to deal with at all in their speeches supporting the amendment. As both noble Lords know, the courts are rightly slow to penalise people for contempt, and it is far from certain that a lawyer who breached his duty to the court would be found to be in contempt of court. Both noble Lords know that that would depend entirely on the circumstances of the case.
I do not think it can be right, as a matter of principle, to say that a lay person is guilty of contempt if he acts in a way likely to bring about an act by a lawyer which may or may not be a contempt.
As I explained in Committee, there is no reason why lay members of the public, be they employers, clients, witnesses or anyone else, should know what a lawyer's duty to the court entails. It is for the lawyer to know that, and, if necessary, to explain why he cannot act in certain ways. If the lawyer betrays his duty to the court, it is he, and not his client or employer, who should be punished. That seems right to me. The lay person could quite understandably urge a lawyer not to tell the court something, unaware that suppressing a fact could just as much be a breach of his duty as telling a direct fib. I realise that lying behind these amendments is a concern that employed lawyers—
10.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, but if the lay person, who is not answerable to a professional body, knows perfectly well that he is asking something improper of the lawyer, and the lawyer is subjected to such pressure that he gives way and does as he is asked, should not the lay person be answerable to the court?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, two points arise from that. First, the lawyer is there to resist. Secondly, the amendments make it clear that it does not matter whether or not he knows that it is a breach of duty.
654
As I have said, I realise that lying behind these amendments is a concern that employed lawyers may be pressurised by unscrupulous employers to act in ways which are unethical. I think those fears are exaggerated. But in cases where an unscrupulous employer did attempt to interfere in the course of justice, he could, of course, be dealt with under the existing law, either for contempt—that is, for contempt of the existing law—or, in the most serious cases, for perverting the course of justice or for conspiring or attempting to do so. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Hacking and Lord Borrie. These are designed to ensure that if an employed advocate or litigator is dismissed from his employment because of a conflict between his duty to his employer and his compliance with the duties imposed by Clause 35—that is, his duty to the court—he shall be regarded as having been unfairly dismissed.
When this Bill was being drafted, my noble and learned friend considered whether it ought to include a provision of this kind, but concluded that it was unnecessary. The question of whether a dismissal is fair or unfair is one of fact for an employment tribunal. I have no doubt that an employed lawyer would succeed in an unfair dismissal claim, if he could show to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he had been dismissed because, for example, he had refused to obey an instruction from an employer as to how he should handle a case in court, when to obey that instruction would have put him in breach of the statutory duties imposed by Clause 35. Clause 35 already makes it clear that the duties it imposes on advocates and litigators override any other duty they might owe in civil law, including, for example, any contractual obligation to an employer.
The law on unfair dismissal was consolidated in the Employment Rights Act 1996. One of the banes of lawyers everywhere is that no sooner does one statute regularise and consolidate the law than other statutes start to provide exceptions and special cases. I am reluctant to do so in this case, in respect of employed lawyers, because I think it may prove confusing and unhelpful to provide in this Bill what purports to be a special rule for lawyers who are unfairly dismissed, when in fact all that rule will do is to restate what would have been the position in any case.
Having said that, I should make it clear that my noble and learned friend is willing to look again at this. One of the proper functions of the law is deterrence, and it may be that, on this occasion, there would be advantage in making it explicit on the face of the Bill that employed lawyers may not be penalised for adhering to their statutory duties, and that if they are penalised, they will have redress. My noble and learned friend will therefore consider this matter further, in discussion with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. If it is decided that such an amendment would be

655
helpful, it be moved in another place. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Hacking will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and leaned friend for that reply, and particularly for the last passage in which he told us—this is most welcome—that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will give further consideration to this matter. It is important to put the stake in the ground here. We should remember that on a Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, your Lordships removed from the Bill the right of employed lawyers to have audience in the courts. Your Lordships have therefore shown some unease about employed lawyers having rights of audience before the courts. If we can illustrate the fact that an employed lawyer has to fulfil his absolute duty to the court, I think and hope that those worries will be assuaged.
I am not so hopeful that the fears of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will be assuaged, even at Third Reading or when the Bill returns from another place. But I would be more hopeful that the House as a whole would feel that there is sufficient protection to the system of justice and that the role that employed lawyers, in exercising rights of audience, play in the sanctity of justice would be sufficient to make us feel comfortable with the willingness to restore to this Bill Clause 31, which disappeared at Committee stage. On that basis I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 20, line 37, after ("act") insert ("with independence").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 180:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC NOTARIES: ABOLITION OF SCRIVENERS' MONOPOLY
(". A public notary may practise as a notary in, or within three miles of, the City of London whether or not he is a member of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London (even if he is admitted to practise only outside that area).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my amendments and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, go to the same purpose; namely, to end the statutory monopoly held by the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London over notarial work in the central London area.
Amendment No. 180 will insert a new clause after Clause 36, providing that a notary may practise in the City of London or within three miles of its boundaries, whether or not he is a member of the Scriveners' company. The subsequent Amendments Nos. 192 to 195 standing in my name will amend Schedule 11 so as to repeal references to the monopoly in statute accordingly.
I shall explain some of the background to this, as it may be that not all of us are completely familiar with the intricacies of the notarial profession. Notaries authenticate certain legal documents, mainly for use abroad, by signing and sealing them. They may also prepare legal documents for use abroad, undertake conveyancing and probate work, translate foreign legal documents, administer oaths and take affidavits. However, all notaries who wish to offer notarial services in the City of London or within three miles of its boundaries, must, under the current legislation, belong to the incorporated company, with is a livery company of the City of London. Members of the Scriveners' Company are subject to more specialised training requirements than general notaries, who are mostly solicitors. I understand that there are currently 28 scrivener notaries practising in the City who are the beneficiaries of this monopoly. There are roughly 1, 000 non-scrivener general notaries who are only permitted to practise outside the specified area.
This monopoly was placed on a statutory basis by Section 13 of the Public Notaries Act 1801, and confirmed by Section 6 of the Public Notaries Act 1843 and Section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. During the passage through Parliament of the Competition Act 1998, there was pressure to abolish the monopoly, which is understandable, and an amendment to that end was tabled. The amendment was ultimately rejected as being outside the scope of that Act. However, I undertook to review the arguments for and against the monopoly, in order to form a view on the desirability or otherwise of its abolition.
I have now received views from the various notarial associations, the Law Society, the Office of Fair Trading, and the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which, for historical reasons, regulates the notarial profession. I have come to the clear view that there is no justification for preserving this monopoly. As the Government's policy is generally hostile to the preservation of commercial monopolies, the existence of the Company's monopoly is anomalous. The Office of Fair Trading has advised me that the monopoly is anti-competitive and should be abolished. Concerns have been raised by those who oppose the monopoly that in a large area of central London, ordinary notarial facilities are not sufficiently accessible to members of the public who might need them.
I have considered the arguments from the Incorporated Company of Scriveners—namely, that it offers a specialist service and that standards will be lowered by competition—but I do not find them convincing. There will be nothing to stop notaries from continuing to belong to the Scriveners' company if they wish, and if they offer a higher level of service than other notaries they should have nothing to fear from competition.
I have detailed reasons for marginally preferring the terms of this amendment, which I have brought forward, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I imagine he would agree that it is unnecessary to go into that kind of detail. I hope that your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be happy to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 180. When I tabled Amendment No. 181 I was not certain that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was going to table Amendment No. 180. Had I known that he was going to do so, I would not have tabled my own amendment. I certainly shall not move it on this occasion.
Notaries are a minor branch of the legal profession in England and Wales. They are of course much more important in other legal systems, particularly in mainland Europe. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the important role of the notaire in the French legal system. The profession is an ancient one and many of your Lordships will be familiar with the important role which notaries, real or bogus, played in the historical events recorded in the "Marriage of Figaro", "Cosi fan tutte" and "The Barber of Seville".
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): Sing!
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I reject the invitation from my noble friend to sing. Our own legal system could get on perfectly well without notaries but they are, of course, essential where documents which are executed in England and Wales need to be authenticated by a notary for use in other legal systems. I was frankly astonished when a few weeks ago I was told that notaries qualified to practise anywhere else in England and Wales were not allowed to practise in the City of London or within three miles of it, and that in that area the right to practise was reserved to freemen of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners who had passed the company's own examinations and served formal apprenticeships. It is plainly the last remnant of mediaeval guild monopolies. The scriveners say that those who have qualified as freemen of their company offer higher standards of service than other notaries. That may well be true but there is no obvious reason why higher standards are needed in Southwark than in Southampton.
There are a number of professional organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation whose membership is not necessarily a qualification for practice in that profession but is an indication that the members are specialists who have attained high standards in their fields. There is no reason why the scriveners should not enjoy a successful future as an organisation of that kind, but I believe the monopoly must go.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Permission to appeal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 21, line 30. leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 181A to 181G are drafting amendments, which remove from the Bill definitions which are unnecessary. I should also like to take this opportunity to give notice of our intention to table at
658
Third Reading some further drafting amendments. Our aim in doing so will be to ensure that that part of Section 58(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which provides for the finality of certain decisions of a single Lord Justice, will be replicated in the legislation before your Lordships.
The effect of Section 54(6) (which generally prevents the decision of a single Lord Justice on a leave application from being appealed) will also need to be reinstated and, indeed, extended to cover similar decisions of lower courts acting in an appellate capacity. In the meantime, I urge your Lordships to accept the drafting amendments which are currently before you.
I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, although the noble and learned Lord describes these as drafting amendments I suggest that they are perhaps a little more than that and that we ought to spend a moment looking at them. I welcome the change of language proposed which goes some way towards reducing the stringent restrictions on second appeals within the Bill. However, I know I am not alone in retaining misgivings about the whole concept of additional restrictions on second appeals, particularly now that almost all appeals will require leave or permission in any event. It is doubtful that those who will he responsible for granting permission to appeal will need the extra restraints stipulated in the Bill in respect of second appeals. I remain of the view that there may at least be an argument for distinguishing between cases where the first appeal has been successful and where it has been unsuccessful. That is a distinction recognised in a recent practice direction.
At Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that he did not believe that a justice system should be predicated on the assumption that decisions of the lower court are wrong. That is quite correct. But, equally, it must he questionable whether an access to justice Bill should impose these restrictions on second appeals, particularly when permission to appeal is now to be required in almost all categories of case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's points are more pertinent to Amendments Nos. 181B, 181 C and 181D, which deal with the circumstances for a second appeal. I will reserve my reply until I move those amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Second appeals]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 181B:
Page 21, line 38, after ("made") insert ("to the Court of Appeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, you will recall from the discussions in Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just referred, that Clause 38 will introduce into legislation the principle that, in normal circumstances, there should be only one appeal to the courts in the same proceedings. The clause contains a safeguard to ensure that those cases which merit the consideration of the Court of Appeal on appeal are able to reach it.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Philips of Sudbury, sought an amendment, the effect of which would be to enshrine in primary legislation the right of an appellant to invite the Court of Appeal to consider whether a second appeal should proceed. As I have said, it has always been the Lord Chancellor's policy that second appeal applications shoula be considered by the Court of Appeal. although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had intended to make the specific provision for this in secondary legislation. I therefore undertook on his behalf that he would consider an amendment of this nature and return to your Lordships' House on the point today. I hope that noble Lords will agree that Amendments Nos. 181B and 181C meet the concerns about who will hear not only the applications for second appeals hut the second appeals themselves.
Amendment No. 181 B makes clear the destination of any substantive second appeal which is permitted by specifying that such appeals will be made to the Court of Appeal.
Amendment No. 181C directly answers the concerns about whether applications for a second appeal will reach the Court of Appeal. I should draw attention here to a slight, hut important. distinction between the current amendment and the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. While it may not have been the intention of those noble Lords, prior to any Court of Appeal consideration of the merits, the Committee amendment as drafted would have allowed the lower court to make the initial decision as to whether a second appeal should proceed to the Court of Appeal. Such a situation would open the door to inconsistency in the cases which proceed to second appeals, and see cases before the Court of Appeal which it would not itself have considered appropriate for a second appeal. Amendment No. 181C, in naming the Court of Appeal as the body which will consider all applications for a second appeal, avoids these potential pitfalls.
As to Amendment No. 181D, in Committee a number of your Lordships were supportive of the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the use of the word "special" in Clause 38(1)(6). This subsection, together with subsection (1)(a), establishes the criteria which must be satisfied in order for a second appeal to proceed.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given careful consideration to the points which were made on this issue in Committee. On his behalf I now recommend to your Lordships the use of the word "compelling" in place of the word "special". This not only accords with his own earlier inclinations hut, as your Lordships would expect, pays due regard to the views of the Court of Appeal judges, so effectively given voice in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We are satisfied that the phrase "compelling reason" provides an appropriate indication of the circumstances in which there should be a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
These three amendments provide an assurance to litigants that their application for a second appeal will be considered and, if, successful, heard substantively by the Court of Appeal, regardless of how far down the court structure the original appeal was decided. This will also enable the Court of Appeal to determine itself the cases which are most appropriate for it to hear. It therefore provides, overall, a structure by which there are second appeals in appropriate cases and by which in all appropriate cases the Court of Appeal will hear such an appeal; and, further, that there is someone other than the judge of first instance or tribunal of first instance that made the decision who will have some say in whether leave to appeal should be given. I hope that that lays to rest the legitimate concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 181C to 181E:
Page 21, line 38, at end insert ("the Court of Appeal considers that").
Page 22, line 1, leave out ("special reason for the appeal to be made") and insert ("compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it").
Page 22, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to prescribe alternative destination]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 181F:
Page 22, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 M[Assignment of appeals to Court of Appeal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18IG:
Page 23, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 182:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint one of the ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal as vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division and any person so appointed shall hold that office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) In section 4 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (composition of High Court)—

(a)in subsection (1) (membership), after the words "the Senior Presiding Judge:" insert— "(ddd) the vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division;", and.

(b)in subsection (6) (vacancy in offices not to affect constitution), at the end insert "and whether or not an appointment has been made to the office of vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division."

(3) In section 5 of that Act (divisions of High Court), in subsection (1)(b) (Queen's Bench Division), after 'thereof, "insert "the vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it has been the practice for some time for the Lord Chief Justice to appoint a senior member of the Court of Appeal to assist him in his administrative duties as President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. The Lord Chancellor's predecessor decided, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that this appointment should be formalised as Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division.
It was always the former Lord Chancellor's intention that the appointment should be put on a statutory footing when the opportunity arose to do so, an intention which the present Lord Chancellor has fully supported. The present Lord Chancellor is grateful to his predecessor for pointing out to him that this Bill afforded him precisely that opportunity.
The amendment as drafted echoes the provisions made in the Courts and Legal Services Act to put the appointment of the senior presiding judge on a statutory footing and also reflects the provisions in the Supreme Court Act for Vice-Presidents of the divisions of the Court of Appeal. I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 183:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
PROHIBITION AGAINST CHILDREN BEING PRESENT IN COURT DURING THE TRIAL OF OTHER PERSONS
(". In section 36 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (prohibition against children being present in court) after "shall", where it first appears, insert "without the consent of the court (which may be withdrawn at any time)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is addressed to the fact that Section 36 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prevents children under the age of 14 from going into a court other than as witnesses or in one or two other specific capacities. If the amendment is passed, it will permit any court to allow anyone of any age into the court with the consent of the court, that consent to be withdrawn at any time.
The origin of this proposal is very simple. The charity of which I am chair, the Citizenship Foundation, in conjunction with the Magistrates' Association, has for some years now run an extremely successful mock trial competition for young people in magistrates' courts. The Lord Chancellor will recollect, I am sure, his appearing last year to judge the final of this remarkable competition which engages more than 2, 500 young people every year in going into magistrates' courts and conducting cases, taking all the roles in the conduct of those cases, including those of magistrates themselves, with only one genuine person, if I may use that expression, being present on those occasions; namely, the chair of the Bench for each case.
As the law stands, although the typical age of the participants is 12 and 13, they are not allowed into local magistrates' courts prior to their day in court in order to get the feel of the real court in action and to get some idea of how cross-examinations are undertaken and how indeed the whole court process works. This amendment
662
has the innocent intent of allowing these 12 and 13 year-olds to sample the reality before they do their hit and try their own efforts at taking the Farts in the court process.
The amendment is simply drawn. It gives complete discretion to each and every court as to whether to admit children under the age of 14 and explicitly gives any of those courts which do allow young people in, the right at any time to ask them to withdraw. I therefore commend to your Lordships the proposal contained in this amendment. I should also add that the Justices' Clerks' Society, which is such a strong supporter of the "mock trial" competition, is also happy at the thought that this amendment may pass your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for bringing this issue to your Lordships' attention. This is an area of legislation that has remained unchanged, for one reason or another, for over 65 years. To some, that might signal that there are no real problems with this section; no real mischief to address. To my mind, that is certainly not necessarily so. The fact that there has been no change for a long time should not preclude useful alterations now. I therefore wish to explore for a moment or two the exact intention behind the amendment.
As the law stands, children are prohibited from attending criminal trials unless they are a defendant, a witness, an infant in arms or their presence is required for the purposes of justice. The intention of this section was almost undoubtedly to protect children from the sometimes harsh, perhaps troubling environment, of an adult trial. But we recognise that time has moved on. We have already made changes to youth court procedure to achieve a greater openness in proceedings, and a move to greater openness could be welcome. Also, we recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, emphasised, the importance of our children being educated in the process of justice as well as in the other institutions of an open society. So I am not unsympathetic to the spirit of the proposed new clause.
The effect of the amendment would appear to be to create a greater openness while maintaining the court's control over its own proceedings. Of course the new clause will affect not only the magistrates' courts but also the higher criminal courts. It is important that the court be left to regulate its own proceedings in this area because the court's decisions will vary on a case-to-case basis.
While I can see the argument that the court should have a discretion to exclude children from the outset, let us say because of the nature of the case, or in the course of the case because of the nature of the evidence being given at the time, I am unhappy with an open-ended discretion to exclude or admit by reference to no statutory criteria. One court could exclude children as a matter of course whereas another could follow a quite different approach.

663
My basc reaction—though I confess I have not thought the through thoroughly—is that, if there were to be a change of this nature, there should be statutory criteria ay reference to which children should be excluded or admitted. I readily confess that I have not given my mind sufficiently to what those criteria might be or bow meaningful or useful they might be. It is for consideration whether there should be a rebuttable presumption in favour of admission subject to exclusion based on statutory criteria.
I have said enough to indicate to the noble Lord that I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendment, but invite him to give further thought to an amendment along the lines I indicated. Meanwhile, I will have my officials do likewise. I undertake to write to the noble Lord; I invite him to write to me. On that basis, which is an expression of sympathy for the spirit of his amendment, I hope he will withdraw his amendment this evening.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis indicated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Areas outside Greater London]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 32, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) a unitary county council;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment No. 184 in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
The amendment applies to subsection (10) of Clause 54. The clause deals with magistrates' courts committees. Subsection (10) defines what is a relevant authority. There are three categories of relevant authority stipulated in the Bill: a county council; a county borough council; and the council of a unitary district. The amendment seeks to add a fourth category: a unitary county council.
Under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 a unitary county council is defined as a council in a county in which there are no district councils. Apparently, the Isle of Wight is the only geographical entity which falls into that category. Were this amendment not passed, therefore, the Isle of Wight would be excluded from the scope of Clause 54. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary. The definition of "relevant authority", as set out in Section 32(10) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, is unchanged by Clause 54, barring the omission of references to councils for London. This reflects the position since the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. Clause 56 establishes a separate magistrates' courts authority for Greater London.
A unitary council such as the Isle of Wight, of which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was such a distinguished Lord Lieutenant, falls into category (a) of
664
Clause 54(10) as it is a county council. All other unitary authorities are captured within the ambit of subparagraph (c) of the clause. As the primary purpose of this subsection is explanatory only, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall convey the noble Lord's reassuring words to the former Lord Lieutenant and Governor of the island. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Qualification for appointment]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 185:
Leave out Clause 58.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have hesitated at some length as to whether I ought to intervene at this stage, having taken no part in these proceedings but having listened with some admiration to the immensely learned preceding debates. I assure noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that I am not the vanguard of the nightshift and I shall try to be brief.
I have some sympathy with the anxieties that have been expressed about Clause 58 by the Association of Justices' Chief Executives. Members of the association believe that their posts should by law continue to require a legal qualification and that Clause 58 is misconceived and ought to be removed from the Bill.
I have studied the Committee stage debates on this and the following clause that took place on 28th January, and I have read carefully the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, (at col. 1265 of Hansard) and the remarks of those who took part in that debate, and also the second speech of the Minister (at col. 1268) in response to a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I have also seen the government amendments on the following clause, which may go some way to meet the anxieties of the association.
But to my inexpert mind, those debates and the amendment that has been tabled to the new clause have been primarily aimed to protect the independence of the individual justices' clerk from improper influence so as to underline the importance of his role in giving legal advice to magistrates' courts. It was also desired to clarify the distinction between the justices' clerks' legal role and their administrative functions.
The amendments that were debated and those that will be before this House were not primarily aimed at retaining the existing law about chief executives' legal qualifications. I do not think that this is a case that has yet been argued on the Bill. I think it should be argued so that Ministers can explain why they are removing this required qualification.
What is now Clause 59(6) of the Bill seeks to give authority to justices' chief executives to direct the advice to be given by justices' clerks and other staff, other than advice that is protected by Section 48 of the 1997 Act. I am advised that this would include legal advice given to justices outside the court room. It seems to the association wrong to allow a chief executive who

665
does not himself have a legal qualification such as is required to be held by the justices' clerk to exercise such powers.
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, Parliament was very careful in its consideration of this matter. It took the view then—and the association believes that Parliament was right—that there were substantial grounds for retaining the requirement for justices' chief executives to be legally qualified.
The Magistrates' Court Service is essentially a legal service, operating within what I believe everyone recognises as a highly complex statutory framework. It is essential that a magistrates' courts committee's chief officer—for that is what we are talking about—is competent in the law so as to be in a position to ensure that the courts committees function within the law. He must himself understand that fine line, which I think was debated at some length in Committee, between legal advice and the administrative functions in order to maintain the independence of the judicial process, which we all regard as of the utmost importance.
Magistrates' courts committees are increasingly expected to have a clear understanding of complex areas of law in relation to such matters as employment, finance and other issues and they must therefore have as their chief executive officer a man or woman who is fully able to understand such issues and assist them in applying the law to the decisions that are made.
A professional legal qualification facilitates and strengthens the responsibilities attached to the justices' chief executives because they are responsible for the line management of the justices' clerks. They take the view that it is not satisfactory that the legally qualified clerks should have as their next-in-line manager someone who does not need to be legally qualified. This is important not only in the management of the courts but in the operation of the magistrates' courts committee's area legal forum.
A professional legal qualification facilitates successful inter-agency discussions with other chief officers within the justice system who themselves possess legal qualifications. One thinks immediately of the Crown Prosecution Service, the local law society and other services which have to have a substantial knowledge of the law, such as the police, the Probation Service, and so on.
As was mentioned in Committee, the justices' chief executive is responsible for overseeing many legal or quasi-legal statutory functions, such as enforcement and legal aid. While the Bill seeks to define a clearer separation on the one hand of legal roles delivered by the justices' clerk and his roles in administration on the other, the fact of the matter is that the whole service finds its focus through the post and position of the justices' chief executive. He it is who must be capable of understanding and bringing together the two sides, legal and administrative, to ensure effective delivery of the important legal and judicial service. If he himself does not have the legal qualification, there is a real danger that he will not be able to perform that function as effectively as hitherto. Ministers have not explained
666
why they believe it is right to remove that requirement. I believe that the association has adduced some powerful arguments that need a reply. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for expanding on what is a relatively simple issue; namely, the proposal to remove Clause 58, which itself removes the requirement that a person may not be appointed as a justices' chief executive without the specified legal qualifications of a justices' clerk. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the fairly extended debate in Committee, part of which was about the qualifications of the justices' chief executive but much more of which was about the need, as a number of noble Lords saw it, to define and protect the legal responsibilities of justices' clerks.
A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, felt that the proposals in the Bill to rely on Clause 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 were not adequate to protect the legal responsibilities of justices' clerks because they referred only to protection in giving advice in an individual case. They felt that it was important to have that more widely drawn.
In response to those objections I undertook to go back and consider what further amendments would be necessary. As the noble Lord has generously acknowledged, that is what is contained in Amendments Nos. 186 to 189. I hope that when we come to those amendments I shall be able to show that we have achieved that certainly to the satisfaction of the Justices' Clerks Society and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the Association of Justices' Chief Executives.
Having said that, we return to what I may be so bold as to describe as the secondary issue of whether the justices' chief executive should have legal qualifications. The post of the justices' chief executive was established by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. Each of the then 105 magistrates' courts committees, with three exceptions, was duty bound to appoint a lawyer qualified as a justices' clerk. This gave a near monopoly to justices' clerks to be promoted to chief executive. The Government do not believe that that monopoly should continue. We are fortified in that view by having, I hope to the satisfaction of all concerned, properly distinguished between the legal and the administrative roles of justices' clerks.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that essentially this was a legal service. It is not. Essentially, it is a legal service contained within an administrative service of very considerable extent involving a vast amount of public expenditure. That is not to say that the experience of justices' clerks, the service's professional legal advisers—who until now have comprised the overwhelming majority of justices' chief executives—will be wasted. There will be no pressure on committees to appoint non-lawyers. Committees will retain the right to choose and appoint lawyers if they wish. This clause provides committees with the opportunity to appoint individuals without legal qualifications but with relevant skills in management and administration of what is,

667
I repeat, a very considerable business. Justices' clerks will not Ix prevented from applying for posts but the competition will be wider.
We believe that the current legislation limits the potential of committees to attract the best possible applicants for the post of justices' chief executive. I do not denigrate the skills of those individuals who have been appointed as justices' chief executive, but the skills of managers in other organisations, whether in the public or private sector, are pertinent to the management of the magistrates' courts. With his own business experience, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will recognise the importance of transferability of skills. It is essential that a justices' clerk is legally qualified of course. The lay magistracy rely on him for advice in court and on matters of law including practice and procedure.
The justices' chief executive is the statutory head of service locally. Subject to any directions given by the committee, the chief executive is responsible for the day-to-day running of the area.
Since 1994, it has become clearer that the chief executive has a different role and needs to be a dedicated administrator and not dilute the emphasis of this pivotal post with the added daily responsibilities of a lawyer. The removal of the requirement for legal qualifications is particularly important, as Clause 60 of the Bill transfers the responsibility for administrative functions from the justices' clerk to the justices' chief executive. That is to ensure that neither the administrative nor the legal functions are diminished in any way.
It is true that anything dealing with the magistrates' courts requires an understanding of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, makes a valid point. But that can be achieved through good training. It can be business training which is transferable. The magistrates' courts committee will, I am sure, recruit competent chief executives; and a legal qualification need not be required because the magistrates' courts will make that decision.
In the light of our undertaking, which I believe we have fulfilled, to make the proper distinction between legal functions and administrative functions I hope that the noble Lord and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives will feel that we have come to the right conclusion. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord for the careful way in which he has responded to the amendment I moved. I think that the association will regard the matter as now having been properly aired.
The noble Lord laid some emphasis on the concepts of competition and monopoly. No doubt the association will take note of that. As I said in my opening remarks, I think that the amendments tabled which will be discussed in a moment may go some way to reassure the association that its concerns are recognised. The association points out, however, that in a number of
668
other services where one has specialists who need to be managed by non-specialists the experience has not always been a happy one. My experience of that in the health service is perhaps one example. One can think of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police Service and so on. I hope that the noble Lord and the Government are right and that there will not be the difficulties which the association fears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Role]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 36, line 30, leave out from ("to") to end of line 31 and insert ("matters of law (including procedure and practice) among the justices' clerks appointed by the committee, in particular with a view to securing consistency in the advice given by them to justices about such matters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 186, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 187 to 189. The principal amendment is Amendment No. 188.
I shall try to avoid repetition because it was necessary for me to introduce some of the argument in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the previous amendment. These amendments are brought forward as a result of our debate in Committee on the respective roles of the justices' chief executive and the justices' clerk and the transfer of administrative functions of justices' clerks. A number of amendments were proposed which I might summarise as having the intention of providing confirmation of the independence of justices' clerks in the exercise of their legal and judicial functions.
In response to the representations, I agreed to consider further the concerns of those who laid amendments to what are now Clauses 59 and 60. I also agreed to bring forward further government amendments, if that proved to be appropriate. We have given further consideration to the concerns expressed about the role and independence of the justices' clerk and we have had useful meetings and correspondence with those in the magistrates' courts service. We were concerned to find a proper balance between the need to maintain independence in the provision of legal advice and the clear need for justices' clerks to be properly under the direction of the justices' chief executives in matters of administration.
We have accepted that some advice-giving on matters of law stretch beyond that of an individual case. We have also identified some further judicial functions of justices' clerks which are not covered by the existing provisions in Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1997; that is, some judicial functions conferred upon justices' clerks directly by statute rather than by rules made in accordance with Section 144 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.
For both of those reasons, we accept that the description in Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act is no longer sufficient to describe the range of functions in respect of which the justices' clerk should be independent of direction. Consequently, new Clause

669
59A introduces a revised Section 48. The reference to advice-giving in individual cases is dropped. In new Section 48(2)(a), the judicial function is more widely expressed to encompass any function which is exercisable by one or more justices of the peace. New Section 48(2)(b) describes the giving of legal advice by reference to Section 45(4) and (5).
The definitions in Section 45(4) and (5) are amended to make it clear that the functions and powers referred to concern advice on matters of law, which includes matters of legal procedure and practice. We believe that the clear link between this provision and Section 48 removes any doubt about the independence of clerks when giving legal advice, which goes beyond that given in individual cases.
Amendment No. 187 has the effect of removing subsection (3) from Clause 59. This is no longer required in the light of the amendment to Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Amendment No. 186 amends Clause 59 by making an alteration to the wording of new Section 41(4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The amendment makes it clear that one of the purposes of the meetings, arranged by justices' chief executives for justices' clerks to discuss matters of law, is to promote the consistency of legal advice given by justices' clerks throughout a magistrates' court committee area.
Our debate on amendments considered at the Committee stage included amendments laid on Clause 59(6). In the light of the government amendment to Section 48, there is no need to make any change to this provision.
Finally, Amendment No. 189 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 60(5). It might be helpful if I were briefly to remind your Lordships that the purpose of the clause was to bring about the transfer of responsibility for administrative functions to the justices' chief executive. Subsection (5) of the clause attempted to provide reassurance that there was no intention to transfer responsibility for legal matters to the chief executive. The amended subsection (5) confirms, in light of the new Section 48, that for the purposes of this section. the administrative functions of justices' clerks are all those apart from those which are legal functions within the meaning of the new Section 48(2).
I apologise for the length of this speech, but the issue is important and complex. I believe it is important for your Lordships to consider this package of amendments as a whole. I hope that you are reassured that the concerns expressed by some noble Lords during Committee stage have now been comprehensively, and satisfactorily, addressed. The independence of legal advice generally, free from direction by the justices' chief executive or magistrates' courts committee, is secured. There is more clarity as to which functions are legal and a proper line is drawn between the responsibilities of chief executives and justices' clerks. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the great trouble he has taken to allay the concerns
670
of the justices' clerks. They greatly appreciated the fact that they had an opportunity to speak to the Minister and his officials so that they could express their worries. They are completely satisfied with the amendments, which I support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 37, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 188:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENCE OF CLERKS AND STAFF EXERCISING LEGAL FUNCTIONS
(".—(1) For section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 substitute—
"Independence of justices' clerks and staff exercising legal functions.
48.—(1) When exercising any legal function—

(a) a justices' clerk shall not be subject to the direction of the justices' chief executive or any other person or body; and

(b) a member of the staff of a magistrates' courts committee shall not be subject to the direction of any person or body other than a justices' clerk.

(2) In subsection (1) "legal function" means—

(a)any function exercisable by one or more justices of the peace; or

(b)a function specified in section 45(4) or (5) above."

(2) In section 45 of that Act (functions of justices' clerks)—

(a)in subsection (4) (advice on law, practice or procedure to justices at their request), for "law, practice or procedure" substitute "matters of law (including procedure and practice)", and

(b)in subsection (5) (power to bring point of law, practice or procedure to attention of justices), for "law, practice or procedure" substitute "law (including procedure and practice)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Transfer of administrative functions of justices' clerks]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 37, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert ("those which are legal functions within the meaning given by section 48(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 191:
Page 99, line 44, leave out ("directs") and insert ("specifies").
Page 100, line 12, leave out ("14(2)(a)") and insert ("14(1)").
Page 100, line 14, leave out ("direct") and insert ("specify").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendmets Nos. 192 to 195:

page 106, line 22, at end insert—

("41 Geo. 3 c.79.

The Pubilc NotariesAct 1801.

Section 13.

6 & 7 Vict. C. 90.

The Public Notaries Act 143.

Section 6.")

page 106, line 36, at end insert—

("1985 c. 36.

The Administration of Justice Act 1985.

Section 65.")

page 107, line 8, column, 3 at end insert—

("Section 57(11)")

Page 107, line 10, column3, at end insert—

(In section 113, in subsection (1), in the definition of "general

notary", paragraph (b) and the preceding "or" and, in subsection (10) paragraph (d) and the preceding "and ".")

On Qusetion, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 196:
Line 5, leave out second ("and") and insert (" to appoint a vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division and to make provision about").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight

  Correction to Official Report
  Correction to Official Report
  Peers' Age Profile
  Peers' Age Profile
  Peers' Attendance Record
  Peers' Attendance Record
  Yugoslavia: Arms and Training Embargo
  Yugoslavia: Arms and Training Embargo
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargo
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargo
  Charter Mark Awards: Retention
  Charter Mark Awards: Retention
  Carers: Paid Breaks
  Carers: Paid Breaks
  Concessionary Fares for Disabled People
  Concessionary Fares for Disabled People
  Rail Fare Increases
  Rail Fare Increases
  Northern Ireland: Ceasefire Breach
  Northern Ireland: Ceasefire Breach
  Preparations for EMU: Standing Committee Minutes
  Preparations for EMU: Standing Committee Minutes
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid
  Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid