Sitting of 22 February 1999

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

  Territorial Army (Doncaster)
  Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central): What financial provision he has made for training Territorial Army cadets in Doncaster. [70491]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): As I have announced, we are fully committed to the cadet forces in this country and have made extra resources available to them.
  The cadet detachments in Doncaster will continue to have six adult instructors and an officer devoted to their training. In addition, we plan to construct a new indoor rifle range for the cadets at Danum road.
  Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the local Territorial Army squadron, the King's Own Yorkshire Yeomanry, has welcomed the announcements about the continuation at Danum road of the cadet force, and I am sure that it will welcome today's announcement.
  2
  However, is he aware of the concern that the Danum road centre may be open for perhaps only two evenings a week and the occasional weekend? Is he considering making the centre available for other youth training activities, to maximise the investment in it?
  Mr. Henderson: We intend to ask the local Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations to make resources available to other youth organisations where appropriate and where that can help to add to the facilities provided for young people in Doncaster. We also welcome the support in Doncaster for the improvements to the cadet facilities.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the Minister aware of the increasing difficulty in providing the necessary facilities for cadets with so many TA camps and training grounds closing?
  Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there must be changes. Most cadet units meet not in TA centres but in schools and other places, and that will continue unchanged. The vast majority of cadet units that meet in TA centres will continue to meet where they have met traditionally. Those forced into changes because of the general changes to the estate of the TA will receive facilities that are at least as good as those they have at present and, in some cases, the facilities will be improved.

  Deployment (South-east Europe)
  Mr. David Heath: What is the current deployment of British armed forces personnel in south-east Europe. [70492]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): There are currently some 5,675 British armed forces personnel deployed in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece. That number excludes defence attaché staff.

  3
  The House will wish to be aware that the Government decided on Friday to authorise the deployment of some 2,225 personnel to Greece and Macedonia as the advance element of the UK's contribution to any NATO-led peace implementation force in Kosovo. These are the personnel of the lead armoured battle group and 4 Armoured Brigade headquarters, whose heavy equipment and vehicles were deployed following the announcement that I made to the House on 11 February. This further advance deployment of equipment and personnel represents prudent military planning to ensure that the UK can continue to play its part in bringing about a peaceful settlement in Kosovo.
  I hope that the peace talks jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will lead to a successful outcome, including the need for a NATO-led military force to underpin the agreement. However, we cannot be certain that that will happen. If agreement is not reached, the UK will be prepared to act with our allies to take whatever measures are necessary to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.
  Mr. Heath: I share the Secretary of State's view, and we all hope for a successful outcome from Rambouillet. Does he agree that, if President Milosevic accepts the political, but not the military, outcome of those talks, bombing alone will not secure peace in Kosovo? Has he had any discussions with his counterparts in Russia on the concept of including within the NATO-led peace implementation force a component from Russia, particularly given the skilful and distinguished role that those troops played in Bosnia?
  Mr. Robertson: The only thing that will guarantee peace in Kosovo for the future is a political agreement to which both sides subscribe. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been working towards with his colleagues at Rambouillet during the past two weeks. My right hon. Friend deserves the commendation of the House for the effort and energy that he has put into the talks. The talks are continuing, and it is not for me to predict how they will go up to the deadline that was fixed for tomorrow afternoon. We would like to avoid all violence, and the troops deployed to Greece and Macedonia are there as a precaution—a prudent military contingency for what we hope will be an implementation force designed to supervise a peace agreement, if that happens.
  On Russia, we would all like to see a Russian contingent as part of any multinational force. The Russians are part of the stabilisation force in Bosnia and part of the Contact Group involved in the negotiations, and they have been unanimously behind the position taken up in the negotiations so far.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend see the moving obituary on Saturday by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) of the wartime Bomber Command hero, Group Captain Peter Johnson, which described how Hitler gave a fortnight's leave to any German soldier on the Russian front or in north Africa whose home had been destroyed? Is it not true that people whose families are bombed react with far more vigour and determination? What does he think the
  4
  effect on the Serbs will be of heavy bombing, some of which will undoubtedly hit civilian targets, however careful the bombers may be?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I did not see the obituary, but if that hero were here today, he too would say that we must be robust in our approach to those who bully and intimidate, are responsible for disproportionate violence and take it out on civilians. We have always made it clear, up to and including the agreement reached with Ambassador Holbrooke last year, that Serbia must face the prospect of military action unless it is willing to abandon its uncivilised attacks on people in its own country. Both sides are around the table in Rambouillet. I hope, as we all must, that the sensible discussions will result in a political outcome that will avoid any further violence.
  Mr. John Maples: There are British participants in the peace monitoring force in Kosovo; there is an increasing number of British troops in Macedonia; and there is the possibility that, within the next week or two, they may be deployed in Kosovo itself. Might bombing operations against Serbia begin while those monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe are still in Kosovo, and how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that they do not become hostages? Can he give the House a categorical assurance that there are no circumstances under which British troops going to Macedonia might be deployed in Kosovo other than as part of a peacekeeping force and pursuant to an agreement with Serbia?
  Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would not be prudent for me to speculate on what military action might follow if the Serbs were responsible for a breakdown in the negotiations at Rambouillet. Both sides should listen well to the messages that they are getting. The Kosovo Albanians should be aware that, if they do not engage in the serious business of the negotiations, they, too, are likely to pay a penalty. We are well aware of the role and effectiveness of the Kosovo verification mission, and its members' welfare is high on our safety agenda; but I shall say no more about that at present. Of course British troops will not be deployed in Kosovo unless there is an agreement for them to supervise.
  Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that assurance. May I take him a little further down this path? Paragraph 89 of the strategic defence review says that we can respond to a major international crisis of the nature of the Gulf war or to two crises: one on a Bosnia scale and another more limited, non-war-fighting deployment, for up to six months. Does that mean that, after any deployment into Kosovo, we will not be able to respond to a major international crisis like the Gulf war without withdrawing troops from the Balkans and that, within the force structure planned in the SDR, any Kosovo deployment could be maintained for only six months?
  Mr. Robertson: The answer to the first part of that question is no: it does not mean that at all. The strategic defence review planning assumptions were planning tools, intended to guide the development of our long-term force structure, not to provide a template for specific

  5
  operational commitments. As we explained throughout the review, we may, in particular circumstances, decide to do less than the assumptions provided for, and we may be able to do more. The defence review planning was based on being able to mount two concurrent operations at full brigade level. Maintaining deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo will be very demanding, but the overall forces involved are not of the same order.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo? As he will be aware, my local regiment, the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, has been serving in Macedonia since December. The Christmas before that, the regiment served with distinction in Bosnia and, yesterday, there was press speculation that it was likely to spend next Christmas in Kosovo. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not ideal, and will he do everything possible to ensure that the regiment spends next Christmas in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his local regiment, and I pay tribute to it for giving up both those Christmases in the interests of international law and order. It serves in Macedonia at present as part of the extraction force, who are colloquially known in NATO as the "dentists". The circumstances are inhospitable, but the work is very necessary. If the negotiations at Rambouillet are as successful as we all hope, we will be able to consider force configuration later in the year. 1 am conscious of the obligations that our troops have taken on, and I do not lightly agree to the deployment of troops unless I have clear military advice that such deployment is necessary and that they can cope with it. I much admire and deeply respect the commitment of our armed forces, who are willing to take on commitments to stop massacres and violence such as happened towards the end of last year in Kosovo, and which would almost certainly return if the pressure were taken off.
  Sir Peter Emery: May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the subject of the safety of the OSCE monitors in Kosovo? There are now more than 2,000 there, of whom 350 are British. If bombing happens, would it not be much more likely that they would be attacked by Serb forces? What are the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts in his work with the OSCE management about the safety of those men? They are unarmed and they do a magnificent job, which I am sure that the whole House would wish to support.
  Mr. Robertson: I know that the whole House supports what they are doing and recognises the commitment and bravery involved. Major-General John Drewienkiewicz, who is in charge of the monitors, is a man of substantial quality, whose advice we take on an almost daily basis. We are conscious of the role that the monitors perform in Kosovo and the need for them to be the eyes and ears of the outside world in a situation that can change from moment to moment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the monitors' safety is of paramount importance and high on our agenda in any planning that we undertake.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on recent involvement by United Kingdom military forces in Sierra Leone. [70493]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The presence of HMS Westminster and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Goldrover off the coast of Sierra Leone demonstrates the United Kingdom's continuing commitment to the Government of Sierra Leone and ECOMOG, and to promoting peace and stability in the region. Those ships, and the troops embarked, have provided much needed humanitarian assistance.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Since the restoration of President Kabbah, what troops or units have embarked for Sierra Leone, what was their role, have they been involved in any firing on receipt of firing, and what were the rules of engagement?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend probably knows the answers to his questions.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have not had the brief today.
  Mr. Robertson: If my hon. Friend has sat through all the sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee and does not know that HMS Norfolk preceded HMS Westminster, he is not living up to the high standards that I have always expected of him. I am sure that he does not need a specific briefing. Both those Royal Navy ships and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels with them have given outstanding help, and the trouble and time that they have taken have been deeply appreciated by the Government of Sierra Leone. The rules of engagement are the normal rules that apply in such circumstances, and allow them to return fire only if they are under attack and lives are at risk.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Our armed forces are severely overstretched, the Government are planning a possible large-scale intervention in Kosovo and there is bombing in the Gulf: does not Sierra Leone add just one more overseas operation to the list and expose us to even greater overstretch? At what point will the Government decide either that our armed forces are too small for the jobs that they are expected to do, or that the Government's eyes are too large for their stomach?
  Mr. Robertson: We do what we can, as a country and as regards our armed forces. The Government must deal with what we inherited after the previous Government's pretty savage cuts to the Ministry of Defence budget and to the numbers employed in the armed forces.
  However, the hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly reasonable point that from time to time a judgment has to be made about what can be done and what can be expected from the people under one's command. That is why we have been able to provide, by means of two Royal Navy warships, considerable help to the authorities in Sierra Leone. They have been outstanding in the humanitarian assistance that they have given. In the past few months, the Government have also been able to give sizeable economic assistance and non-lethal equipment to those serving in Sierra Leone, but there is no intention of becoming militarily involved in that part of the world.

  Land Mines
  Ms Dari Taylor: When he expects to complete Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70494]
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: When he expects to complete Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70495]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I am pleased to announce that we have now destroyed the last of the Army's operational stocks of anti-personnel mines. That is a significant milestone and yet another vivid demonstration of our commitment to the obligations that we accepted when ratifying the Ottawa convention.
  Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Will he join me in welcoming the action of the Churches, which will ring their bells on 1 March, the start of Land Mines Awareness Week, to celebrate the signing of the Ottawa convention and, in muffled form, to remind us of the horrors that still happen as a result of land mines? Will other stocks of land mines, such as those held by the Royal Air Force, also now be destroyed?
  Mr. Robertson: I join my hon. Friend in commending all those bodies—the Churches, the non-governmental organisations and the rest—that have brought the matter of land mines to public attention. They caught the imagination of people across the world and they must share in the credit for the fact that the Ottawa convention will enter into force on 1 March.
  At a small ceremony at lunchtime today, I was able to present the last of the British Army's operational land mines—suitably defused—to representatives of the British Red Cross, Care International, the Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust, as a testimony to the work done by those bodies. We all remembered with great regard the contribution made by the late Princess of Wales to that work. The last of the defused land mines was given to the imperial war museum, and I hope that, certainly for the British Army, land mines are a matter of history and not of the future.
  As for the remaining anti-personnel land mines, which are a sub-munition of the JP233 airfield denial weapon, I expect that they will all be destroyed by the end of this year.
  Mr. Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the content of those answers. However, in many parts of the world, land mines are not yet history, but are still laid in the countryside. What assistance can the United Kingdom give in getting rid of land mines that remain a threat in those places?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not the end, but the beginning of the end, of the land mine campaign. Internationally, we must still deal with those countries that have not yet subscribed to the Ottawa convention, and everyone in the House must use whatever influence he or she has in persuading those countries to sign up to the obligations that the House unanimously took up on ratification.
  8
  We must also do more about humanitarian demining and clearing away the legacy of previous wars. I am proud of the contributions made by the UK and by my Ministry in setting up the mine information and technology centre at Minley and in delegating an Army colonel to the Geneva-based humanitarian demining centre and through the other elements in the 10-point programme that I announced last year. We are contributing to solving a global problem on which our minds must be constantly focused if we are to make the world safe for children to walk in all its fields.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Secretary of State's statement that this is the beginning of the end seems over-optimistic. Will he remind the House just how many countries with which we are rarely in agreement, and which have large stocks of land mines, have not even started their land mine destruction programmes?
  Mr. Robertson: I believe in leading by example. Today's announcement comes four years ahead of the date on which the Ottawa convention makes destruction of our stocks mandatory. We have no land mines left, and I can say with conviction, and with pride, that no British soldier will ever again lay an anti-personnel land mine. I hope that countries that are still manufacturing, exporting, transferring and—in some appalling cases—using land mines will pay heed to that example.
  Mr. David Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware of any evidence that there is any decline yet in the production of land mines?
  Mr. Robertson: International pressure is on the countries that manufacture land mines. The significant number of nations that have signed the Ottawa convention, and that have allowed it to come into operation from next week, will make that pressure unsustainable. Producing countries will have to recognise that the world community as a whole regards land mines as an unacceptable form of warfare. Those countries still involved in production will soon realise that they are isolated from a world community that has turned its back on a weapon that is both morally indefensible and militarily unacceptable.

  Army (Retention)
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: What steps he is taking to improve retention in the Army. [70496]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): The Government and the Army are committed to achieving full staffing by around 2004. We are, therefore, properly focusing our efforts on both recruitment and retention. The Army's human resources strategy, which puts people first, provides the foundation on which the Army will obtain, retain and sustain its most important assets. An action plan has been produced to support that human resources strategy. It will take forward both the strategic defence review's policy for people initiatives and other innovative measures that the Army has identified to enhance retention.
  Mr. Soames: Does the Minister agree that retention is proving extremely difficult? I have every sympathy with

  9
  him on that, as I tried to wrestle with the problem myself for three years. Does he agree that all previous prescriptions have proved not to be as successful as they should have been? What new ground is he considering in the attempt to improve retention, which is probably the single most important personnel challenge facing him?
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue facing the Army, and I am pleased that he recognises that there is no quick, easy solution to the problem of raising staffing numbers. I believe that we recruit a soldier but retain a family. It is important to address both ends of that spectrum. First, we have to extend recruitment and try to recruit more women and more people from the black and Asian communities into the Army. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the number of soldiers is now 18 per cent. higher than it was last year.
  As the hon. Gentleman says, it is equally important to retain those who are in the Army. That is why we set up the service families task force, which examines issues such as how to ensure a better education for the children of those who serve in the Army—for example, how they can gain access to schools when they move from one location to another, and how their children can claim grants on their return to the United Kingdom after postings overseas. By examining those practical issues, addressing them and working through the agenda, we shall make remaining in the Army more attractive.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Is not the retention of black and ethnic minority citizens also important? Is it not true that, when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, there was so much racism and bullying in the armed forces that the Commission for Racial Equality nearly took the Ministry of Defence to court? The Labour Government have made much progress on stopping such racism; will my hon. Friend the Minister keep up the pressure? I hope that members of the black and ethnic minority communities will become senior officers in the Army and serve as role models, so encouraging others to join.
  Mr. Henderson: It is crucial that all sections of the British community be approached by the Army, emphasising that it is a first-choice career for young people who might consider serving with us. However, it is important that we make an extra effort in the black and Asian communities, who comprise approximately 6 per cent. of the British population, but comprised less than 1 per cent. of the Army population until 12 months ago. The figures are improving because of recruitment targeting over the past 12 months. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are doing all we can, but that it is not easy to persuade people in those communities, which are often underprivileged, that their sons and daughters can have a good career in the Army.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: From the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the Minister will be aware that Conservative Members too are concerned about retention, especially in the light of the poll carried out by the MOD before the strategic defence review took place: that poll
  10
  highlighted the fact that one of the main problems affecting retention was overstretch and the gaps between overseas exercises and overseas deployments. The Minister will be aware that, in a lecture last Thursday, the Chief of the General Staff made the point that the Army is more heavily committed than at any other time in peacetime and that, if the forces that are predicted for Kosovo are included, the proportion committed rises to 41 per cent. I have to say that many people are not taken—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Please ask a question.
  Mr. Simpson: Many people are not taken by the Minister's statement. Will he tell the House whether he is prepared to go back to the Treasury and come up with more resources to meet that major shortfall?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman can either address the issue or try to make party political capital out of it. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) addressed the real difficulties we face in attracting more people into the armed forces, because that is what we have to do if we are to reduce the overstretch. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) recognises that. He should bear in mind the fact that the strategic defence review committed us to an increase of 3,500 people in our Army.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the role of the British shipbuilding industry as a supplier for his Department. [70497]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): British shipbuilding yards play an important role in supplying warships and major support vessels to the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The strategic defence review announced a large investment in the UK shipbuilding industry over the next 15 to 20 years through major warship programmes, including the future aircraft carrier, common new generation frigate and the future surface combatant. Those programmes will provide a secure long-term platform for the UK shipbuilding industry to continue to win work and increase its efficiency and competitiveness.
  Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance, both current and historical, of shipbuilding to the people of the Wirral? Will he join me in congratulating McTay Marine, a company in my constituency that recently obtained an order for three passenger transfer vessels for use in naval base areas; and will he join me in acknowledging the high quality of the vessels that the company has supplied to the MOD in the past? Does he accept that the people of the Wirral yearn for shipbuilding to be restored to the GEC Marine site at Cammell Laird? That is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field); however, such a development would provide jobs and employment for and utilise the existing and growing skills of my constituents.
  Mr. Spellar: Like my hon. Friend, I greatly welcome the regeneration of shipbuilding in the Wirral area.

  11
  We are also very much aware of the vital contribution that that industry has made in the past. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that arrangements have been made for an MOD team to visit Cammell Laird on 19 March to brief it about the aircraft carrier programme, with a view to assisting that fine company in becoming a potential participant in such programmes.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: In his first reply, the Minister did not mention ro-ro transport. I thought that the Ministry of Defence had plans to lease ro-ros. In confirming what those plans are and when they will come into force, will the Minister refer also to another heavy-lift leasing arrangement for C 17 transport? Will those leases, which are for seven years, be converted into purchases at the end of the day and what will happen to the future large aircraft in the meantime?
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should have probably asked the second part of his question later.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That question was totally out of order. I shall proceed and call a Government Member who has a question about shipbuilding.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I remind my hon. Friend—if he needs any reminder—that there are three first-class yards on the Clyde: Ferguson's, Yarrow and Kvaerner. My constituents who are employed at Kvaerner sincerely hope that the company will secure the orders for the ro-ro vessels. Given that such vessels will be used by the MOD, will the Minister confirm that he will accept tenders only from United Kingdom yards—preferably from Kvaerner?
  Mr. Spellar: We are keenly aware of the interest expressed by Kvaerner as part of a consortium. We have told any potential private finance initiative tenderers seeking to provide vessels that they will have to demonstrate to the MOD that UK build is being considered in any alternative proposals. We hope that British yards will submit competitive bids. My hon. Friend also mentioned Yarrow, which is an extremely successful warship yard that has constructed about 70 per cent. of ships since 1990. The future of British naval shipbuilding has good prospects, and we are working with the industry on that front.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Minister or MOD representatives meet the all-party delegation tomorrow to discuss the Kvaerner consortium bid, are we likely to receive a clear answer? A big problem facing people in the local area is continuing uncertainty.
  Mr. Spellar: All bids are being considered and evaluated at this stage, so it would be premature to give any indication of the outcome. As I have said, we are very pleased with the interest that Kvaerner has shown. It is a very viable bid, but it would be premature to state whether one bid or another will be successful.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark: If he will make a statement on the progress of his investigations into Gulf war syndrome. [70498]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): A number of recently published research papers have presented strong scientific evidence that Gulf veterans report more illness than other comparable groups. That demonstrates the importance of the programme of work that the Ministry of Defence is already undertaking to address Gulf veterans' health concerns, which includes a portfolio of Ministry of Defence-funded scientific research. We are determined to do all that we can to understand why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are now ill.
  Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the positive way in which the Government are addressing the incredibly complicated issue of Gulf war veterans who are clearly suffering from illnesses. The Minister will know that, according to convention, after six or seven years the onus of proof switches against the claimant—that is, the veterans. Will he assure the House today that that will not occur in the case of the Gulf war veterans?
  Mr. Henderson: I recognise my right hon. Friend's interest and expertise in this subject. I am pleased to confirm that his interpretation is correct on this question.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not time that we cut through all these legal and scientific obstacles and paid proper compensation to these men and women? They may not be able to satisfy the difficult tests of legal and scientific causation, but it is perfectly clear to anyone who has listened to or met them that many of the people who went to the Gulf perfectly healthy have returned extremely unfit. Is it not time that the Government made an exception, as we did for the haemophiliacs who contracted the HIV virus through no fault of their own but as a result of being given contaminated blood? Surely Gulf war veterans deserve that kind of exception. Should we not pay them compensation without their having to establish fault or negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence?
  Mr. Henderson: The Government have made it clear that if there is an obligation to pay compensation, the Government will ensure that compensation is paid. Already, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, war pensions are applicable where certain persons who served in the Gulf seek to obtain them. It would be wrong if there was not equity of treatment, and the Government have a responsibility to make sure that people who have suffered in the service of the nation, wherever they served, are given that fair treatment. That must be the case, and it is right that it should be so. The Government's priority is not only to make sure that if compensation should be paid, it is paid, but to get to the bottom of what is wrong with people who served in the Gulf, why they are ill, what is the cause of their illness or illnesses, and what can be done to prevent this happening again.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Even before we get to the issue of compensation, should we not be examining the availability and consistency of treatment for people suspected of suffering from Gulf war syndrome? There is much variation in the expertise of those identifying Gulf war syndrome across the country.

  13
  Will my hon. Friend consider with the war veteran organisations what can be done in the interests of consistency?
  Mr. Henderson: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a medical assessment programme under which doctors will examine any illness being suffered by veterans and then make recommendations, often referring those veterans, with advice, to local doctors or other health care providers. I cannot go further than that, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. There is always a little difference in the treatment that doctors give, based on their own assessment of the difficulties being experienced by a particular individual. We have recently notified family doctors across the country of the potential illnesses with which people who served in the Gulf might approach them, and have made some suggestions on what treatment might be appropriate.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) spoke about variations in the treatment available in the United Kingdom. What contact is being made with the United States Department of Defense, which has also undertaken considerable research into Gulf war syndrome? Is the Minister aware that the depleted uranium used in armour-piercing warheads is not now considered to be the cause of Gulf war syndrome, and that the cause is more likely to be the cocktail of vaccinations given to troops prior to their entering the Gulf? What contact is being made with the United States, and is there a lesson to be learned?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. People from the United States and from Britain who served in the Gulf are suffering from an illness or illnesses. There is continual dialogue between my Department and the appropriate Department in the United States. I have read as widely as I can about what various medical and scientific sources believe to be the cause of the illnesses being suffered. I shall be visiting Washington on Friday to have talks with the United States Government on the progress that they are making. I am a believer in joint projects, where appropriate, with the United States to try to get to the bottom of these problems.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Can the Minister inform the House about the research being conducted by or for his Department into the possible contributory effect of depleted uranium contamination to Gulf war illnesses?
  Mr. Henderson: The Department is supporting and in many cases financing wide-ranging research into the possible causes of the illness suffered by some veterans who served in the Gulf. As I stated in a written answer, I hope to publish a paper shortly on the testing system that would be applicable in this country if any Gulf veterans believe that they have suffered from the pollution of depleted uranium.

  Defence Industry Consolidation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on his policy concerning defence industry consolidation in Europe. [70499]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The Government are committed to encouraging and facilitating the restructuring of the European defence industry so that it is globally competitive and can help to strengthen European defence. It is not for Government to prescribe the course that that restructuring will take or the structures to emerge. Those are primarily for industry to decide, based on its own commercial judgment.
  Mr. Howarth: Given that the enlarged British Aerospace-GEC Marconi will constitute the third largest defence company in the world, and also given that any trans-border mergers between British companies and continental companies will inevitably limit our freedom of movement, I am sure that the House will welcome the Secretary of State's assertion today that that is primarily a matter for the companies themselves. As the Government are clearly standing back from the issue, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's reaction would be were the enlarged British Aerospace to seek to merge with DASA or with Thomson?
  Mr. Robertson: First, I shall make clear the legal position. The proposed merger of British Aerospace and Marconi will be subject to regulatory approval, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on that at this stage. The views of the Ministry of Defence on the military aspects of the merger will be given in confidence to the regulatory authorities at the appropriate time.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about subsequent moves that might take place in European defence. As I said, that is a matter for the industry at a European level to decide. The Governments of the seven countries involved in the initiative have made it clear that we will do what we can as Governments to make sure that such rationalisation throughout the industry can take place. The European problem is that our industries lack the scale to be globally competitive. Rationalisation is therefore not a luxury, but a necessity: either we rationalise, or we will have no jobs left in this valuable and important industry.
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Will recent consolidation have any effect on the Department's future large aircraft project—a subject of great interest to my constituents in Bristol at both British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce?
  Mr. Robertson: The ability of the European industry to undertake such projects effectively and on the basis of value for money depends largely on their remaining competitive and staying ahead of the game. The Government are still committed to the future large aircraft project. We look forward to receiving the details that will inform the decisions that will be taken. The size and nature of the overall industry and our ability to stay alive in the global marketplace will depend on a rationalisation which I believe to be important and, in many respects, urgent.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for a second chance to ask a question.
  The Secretary of State will no doubt welcome the establishment of the organisation for joint armament co-operation—known as OCCAR—involving Britain,

  15
  Germany, France and Italy. However, bearing in mind that we must not create a fortress Europe in the defence industries, what will happen if OCCAR, being a programme-based organisation, happens to have in its programme a project in which the Americans have an interest? Will the Americans be able to join OCCAR?
  Mr. Robertson: I have received no indication of the Americans wanting to join OCCAR, whose purpose was co-operation among the European signatories. I was one of those signatories, and I believe that the organisation has great potential for the future. There is no intention to create a fortress Europe in the rationalisation or in the creation of OCCAR. However, we must recognise that a great European defence industry that employs so many people in so many countries, which in many instances is at the leading edge of technology and has made such a huge contribution to all our economies, will not be able to compete with the American giants in its present form. There will be choice in the international marketplace and there will be jobs in an industry that makes such a huge contribution, but things will have to change.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

  Property Portfolios
  Sir Sydney Chapman: What proportion of the commissioners' assets are currently allocated to property portfolios. [70526]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The annual valuations as at 31 December 1998 are still being confirmed. At the end of 1997, the commissioners held 26.5 per cent. of their assets in property.
  Asset allocation is reviewed annually by the assets committee and the review for the current year is under preparation.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner tell the House how the figure of 26.5 per cent. compares with, for example, the figure 10 years ago, just before the property industry went into recession? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real lesson to be learned is that the commissioners, within their self-imposed ethical restraints, should spread their investments across the spectrum rather than relying too deeply on one or two sectors?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He might wish to know that at the end of 1997, 13 per cent. of the commissioners' assets were in commercial property, with 7.5 per cent. in agricultural property and minerals and 6 per cent. in residential property. As for the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question, about 10 years ago and into the early 1990s, 60 per cent. of the commissioners' portfolio was in property and about 30 per cent. in the stock exchange. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that
  16
  the commissioners, in looking after £3.5 billion-worth of assets, must get the balance right between property, stocks and shares and holding cash in reserve to take any opportunity that may be available for good investments.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that valuations are changing all the time in the sectors to which my hon. Friend has referred, but can he give any indication of the guideline percentage that the commissioners believe is right to have invested in property?
  Mr. Bell: We constantly review our investment policy and strategy so as to get the balance right. Given the movement in the world's stock markets, which has generally been upwards—certainly in our own stock market—we are satisfied that the present balance between property rights, investments in stocks and shares and the holding of cash for future investment is proper.

  Church Vandalism
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on plans to reduce crimes or acts of vandalism against churches. [70528]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am well aware of the nature of the problem of vandalism against churches. On average in a given year one church in three will make an insurance claim relating to a malicious attack on a building. Responsibility for the care of church buildings lies locally with the parochial church council but the Church both at the centre and in the diocese is well placed to give support to parishes in tackling this issue.
  Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, be it in Heswall, Bromborough, Bebington or Eastham, churches are often vandalised? This might take the form of graffiti on the wall, interior desecration or gravestones knocked down, for example. Is my hon. Friend aware also that this serious and deep-felt problem is growing and needs to be contained? Will he consider an extension of the church-watch scheme or encouraging parishes to promote youth projects, or other solutions to that serious issue?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to what is a sad and serious problem. The Church must balance the fact that we need access to our churches for prayer, contemplation and meditation with the need at the same time to keep churches locked for security purposes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in drawing attention to certain schemes that are extant, and I draw his attention to a further scheme which is the first Church risk management group, which has been established for the diocese of Leicester. This group will visit parishes and assess and advise on potential risks. It will work closely with the diocesan advisory committee and appropriate outside agencies to improve fire safety, crime reduction levels and risk management in all church property. The scheme has already attracted much interest

  17
  and it is possible that it may be promoted nationally. I will add my hon. Friend's suggestions to the list that has already been made and ensure that they reach the appropriate authorities.
  Mr. John Bercow: In the light of the recent Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill, what discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Church Commissioners regarding fair treatment of members of the clergy?
  Mr. Bell: I would hope that the Church will be extremely fair to all its clergy and will take that legislation into account. There are discussions on that issue in the General Synod, as well as among the Church Commissioners, and we take the question of charity at home very seriously.

  Commissioners' Responsibilities
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: For what areas of work the commissioners have responsibility following their reconstitution on 1 January. [70531]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners continue to manage our assets to meet our pension and other legal commitments and to provide a sustainable level of support for the parochial ministry over the long term, especially in areas of need and opportunity. We are also responsible for the support of bishops and for the administration of the legal framework for pastoral reorganisation and setting the future of redundant churches.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is clear that the Church Commissioners will have greatly expanded responsibilities in the run-up to the millennium because many areas of the Church will not only require positive monetary support but the benefit of those commissioners' great imagination as they look towards their future duties. What suggestions has my hon. Friend about the way in which their responsibilities can be expanded?
  Mr. Bell: The Archbishops Council has been created to provide a focus for leadership within the Church, and it will certainly include the qualities of dynamism and imagination. In line with its strategic role, the council is now responsible for distributing the income made available from the commissioners' assets for the support of the parochial ministry. It has also taken on the responsibilities formerly held by the commissioners for recommending clergy stipend levels and setting parochial fees.
  You will be glad to know, Madam Speaker, that the commissioners are still responsible and accountable to this House through the Second Church Estates Commissioner. The commissioners will continue to answer questions in the House of Commons and to lay our annual report and accounts before Parliament.

  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Scotland
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many (a) service and (b) civilian personnel are currently (i) deployed and (ii) based in Scotland. [70500]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As at 1 July 1998 there were 14,208 service and 9,194 civilian Ministry of Defence personnel based in Scotland.
  Mr. Savidge: Whether or not Napoleon was really a Scot, with his hand stuck in his wallet pocket, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he does not view the thousands of Scots who serve in our British forces as quasi-mercenaries
  "tainted by their association with England",
  to quote the notorious words of the defence spokesman of the Scottish National party, whose members are absent?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The nationalists' policies on defence are ill-considered, ill-judged and militarily unbelievable. To attack the Scots Guards, which is a proud and brave Scottish regiment, in the terms that the SNP deputy spokesman on defence did, highlights that party's fantastic view of such a major component of Britain's make-up. If the SNP took control and pulled Scotland out of NATO and into isolation—when every other country in Europe, it would appear, wants to join that organisation—Scotland the brave would be transformed into Scotland the isolated.
  Mr. Robert Key: The Government have announced that service and civilian personnel deployed and based in Scotland and the north of England are to have a joint headquarters in Edinburgh. Was that decision based on military and operational cost-effectiveness and nothing else? Were there no other political or financial considerations behind that decision?
  Mr. Robertson: No, there were not. We considered the military and cost-effectiveness arguments for where the headquarters should be located, and we looked into the other arrangements that would apply to York. We came to a considered judgment that Edinburgh was the right place for the divisional headquarters in the United Kingdom.
  We are all part of the United Kingdom, and some of us have every intention of ensuring that we remain so. The decision had no other implications, but it is a good signal that the British Army is still the British Army and plays a proud part in our affairs. Like many people I know, it would reject the idea of Scotland being torn out of the Union and the British armed forces being ripped up in some political squandering by a separatist party.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm whether

  19
  any of the 200 Fijians he hopes to recruit from Fiji will be stationed in Scotland? Will he confirm whether that is a realistic proposal, as reported in Jane's Defence Weekly? From what other countries is he attempting to recruit soldiers into the British Army?
  Mr. Robertson: I saw the Fijian soldiers on parade at the Edinburgh tattoo. They gave a fine display, and I
  20
  understand that they beat practically every military and civilian rugby team that they were up against. Members of the Commonwealth serve in the British armed forces, but I am glad to say that, with an 18 per cent. increase in recruitment figures compared with this time last year, we shall depend on them much less than we would have done had the situation that we inherited continued.

Stephen Lawrence Report (Injunction)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the injunction in respect of prior publication of the Stephen Lawrence report.
In July 1997, I announced to the House that I was establishing a full judicial inquiry under Police Act powers into matters relating to the death of Stephen Lawrence. It was the first such inquiry since Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton riots in 1981. I also announced that the former High Court judge, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, was to chair this inquiry.
The House knows that the inquiry has raised matters of profound importance not only to the Lawrence family but to society as a whole. The report was delivered to me last Monday. Given the intense public and media interest in the inquiry's report, I took active steps to ensure the security of the report while it was being printed, and to ensure that it was first published to Parliament and to no one else. I believed that that was essential to avoid any distress to the Lawrence family or unfairness to police officers named in the report, and out of respect for the House and its procedures. Madam Speaker, I think that you will confirm that I wrote to you last week seeking your agreement to the arrangements which I had put in hand.
At about 5.15 pm last Saturday evening, the Home Office duty press officer received a call from the BBC. The person claimed that The Sunday Telegraph had obtained a leaked copy of the report of the inquiry which it intended to publish in full, or to publish substantial parts of it. As soon as I was informed, at about 6.30 pm, I said that The Sunday Telegraph should be asked not to print a leaked copy of the report. The Sunday Telegraph was not, however, prepared to indicate exactly what material it had in its possession, nor to desist from publication.
The Treasury solicitors, briefed by Home Office lawyers, then also approached The Sunday Telegraph. The paper indicated that it was not in possession of a copy of the report itself, but that a journalist had had access to it. It informed us that its deadline for printing and publication was 8.30 pm.
I took the view that prior publication of parts of this report was not remotely in the public interest. I considered that it was likely to cause distress to the Lawrence family, and to place the police officers concerned in near impossible circumstances in which they would be expected to respond to partial claims of what the report contained without having access to the report itself. I have also always believed, as you do Madam Speaker, that such reports must first be published to Parliament. Moreover, these were wholly exceptional circumstances. This was not a policy White Paper, and the Government could not be embarrassed in any way by the contents of the report being revealed. Above all, this was a report of a full judicial inquiry. It would, I suggest to the House, be no more acceptable to have revealed a premature and incomplete account of the findings of such a full judicial inquiry than it would be for the judgment of a court of law to be disclosed in that way.
22
I remind the House that one of the other purposes of that important convention is to secure protection for those conducting such inquiries. Statute law provides absolute privilege for such documents as the inquiry report only when they are presented to Parliament. In all the circumstances, I therefore decided that every possible effort should be made to preserve the confidentiality of the report, including, if necessary, the seeking of an injunction.
By about 7.45 pm on Saturday, an approach had been made to the duty judge, Mr. Justice Rix, by the Treasury Solicitor. After legal representatives of The Sunday Telegraph had been given an opportunity to make representations to the judge, the judge decided to issue an injunction at about 8.35 pm. The terms of the injunction were to prevent the publication of any part of, or extract from, the report, or the publication of any article based on the report or part of it, or extracts from the report.
It later became clear, however, that The Sunday Telegraph had in fact printed and distributed large numbers of copies of the paper earlier in the evening. In practice, therefore, the contents of The Sunday Telegraph report came into the public domain, notwithstanding the terms of the injunction that had been obtained.
At about midday yesterday, Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph approached the Treasury Solicitor to give notice that it would take the injunction back to the judge. The Sunday Telegraph made it clear to the Home Office that it accepted that it—The Sunday Telegraph—should continue to be restrained by injunction from publishing any part of the inquiry report that had not found its way into the public domain. It also proposed that the order should not apply to those parts that were in any event already public. By that stage, that was the only practical course available.
I greatly regret that our injunction came too late to maintain the confidentiality of the full report until it was published to Parliament, but the injunction remains in force until Wednesday in respect of those parts that have not found their way into the public domain.
The House will wish to know that the solicitors acting for the Lawrence family confirmed to my office today that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence fully appreciate and understand my concern for their feelings about publication of the leaked extracts. As the family have known for some time, it was always my intention to ensure that they would—subject to your agreement, Madam Speaker—have an opportunity to see the report before it entered the public domain, and shortly before publication to Parliament. In view of what has appeared in the press, I have made it clear to them that they may see the report as soon as they wish to do so. Arrangements have therefore been made for them to receive it today. I have also—with your agreement, Madam Speaker—made arrangements for the Commissioner of Police to see the report.
The job that we ask our police service to do on our behalf is difficult at the best of times. We saw one illustration of that only last week in the policing of the demonstration outside the Greek embassy, and the skilful ending by the police of the occupation of the building. As a result of the premature publication of parts of the Stephen Lawrence report, the police service and the Commissioner have now been subjected to a wholly unfair process of speculation to which they could not and cannot properly respond. The fact that prejudicial

23
comments have been made against the Commissioner before he has even had a chance to see the report is one of many reasons why it was right to seek to stop this from happening.
I condemn the breach of trust that was involved in making the material involved available to The Sunday Telegraph in this way, and Sir William Macpherson shares that view. The permanent secretary at the Home Office will be inquiring into the matter. The claims that the freedom of the press has been challenged by the injunction are absurd. The whole report will be published in full to Parliament on Wednesday, as planned; but it was and remains plainly contrary to the public interest for there to be selective and premature disclosure of a judicial inquiry.
Sir Norman Fowler: I do not accept what the Home Secretary has said. Is not the real position that the Home Secretary embarked on an entirely unjustified and autocratic action and has now been forced into a humiliating climbdown? Will he confirm that no issue of national security was raised at all and that The Sunday Telegraph was carrying out its legitimate and proper role as a newspaper—to report and to reveal?
In that respect, let me declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for the past 35 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know that it is unfashionable among Labour Members, but that is what I have been. I am also non-executive chairman of a regional newspaper company. In my experience, both political and journalistic, I have never seen the sort of action that was attempted by the Home Secretary. The injunction was to prevent publication of some extracts of a report that was to be published in a few days in any event. That may be irritating for the Government, but such reports have happened time and again, Government after Government, without Ministers resorting to injunctions. It is ludicrous to think that the Home Secretary can quell speculation about what will be in the report.
On the interests of the Lawrence family, I, like all hon. Members, have the strongest sympathy for the family, but there was nothing in The Sunday Telegraph report that damaged their interests, and there was certainly nothing to justify the heavyhanded action by the Home Secretary.
Even less will the House be persuaded that the Government were trying to protect Parliament. It is an explanation that defies belief. It is the Government who are the chief leakers of their own announcements. Time and again, the Government have leaked their announcements in advance.
Is the Home Secretary aware that next to no one believes that the so-called spin doctors who are employed by the Government are there to defend parliamentary democracy? They do not think twice about leaking if it is to their advantage. The Government have devalued Parliament; they have not protected it.
I remind the Home Secretary that he made a statement only last Monday on severely disturbed people in the community. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) complained at the time, the details of that statement were all in the weekend's press. The pitch had been rolled in advance, and rolled by the Home Secretary's Department.
24
On the source of the story, is the Home Secretary convinced that it did not come from any Minister or any official in his Department? Will he now say who had access to the report? Is it possible that the paragraphs were provided deliberately to convey a message that was antagonistic to the interests of those who were being reported—the police?
In his statement last night, the Home Secretary said that the so-called principle of what he had done remained unchallenged. Let him therefore be specific. Is he saying that his action was not only justified, but that the Government would consider doing the same with other newspaper reports? Is he saying that, in similar circumstances, the injunction would be used again? Is that the Home Secretary's concept of freedom of the press?
No issue of national security was at stake. What the Home Secretary should do is apologise to the House and the public for his action, and give an assurance that neither he nor any other Minister will repeat that action. As it stands, his action in pressing for an injunction will go down as a massive error of judgment on his part and on the part of the Government. It is a shabby episode that shows the Government at their worst.
Mr. Straw: If apologies are due, they are due from the shadow Home Secretary for speaking to the House as chairman of a newspaper company, not as a Member of Parliament.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. I was being distracted. Will the Home Secretary repeat what he said, so that I know whether it should be withdrawn? I am very concerned about it, but I do not know what he said.
Mr. Straw: I said that, if apologies were due, they were due from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for speaking to the House—as indeed he himself declared—as a non-executive chairman of a newspaper company, rather than as a Member of the House.
Hon. Members: Disgraceful!
Madam Speaker: Order—all of you. It is time tempers on both sides of the House cooled down. I hope that the Secretary of State will apologise and rephrase what he has to say. We should get on with our business now.
Mr. Straw: I withdraw the remark and apologise to the shadow Home Secretary.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield suggested that it was a very unusual course of action to take. He was right about that—it was indeed a very unusual course of action to take. It was an unusual course to take because it deals with the very unusual circumstances of the report of a judicial inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the most recent occasion on which such a report had been considered by the House was. The most recent occasion I can recall on

25
which such an inquiry report was made available to the House, under the terms of the Police Act, was Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots, in 1981.
As I made clear repeatedly over the weekend, there was no suggestion that the Government, outside the sphere of national security, should use the injunctive powers available to them when they are seeking to avoid embarrassment to themselves as a Government or to prevent prior disclosure of a document, such as a White Paper or other policy document. Such use in those circumstances plainly would be disproportionate.
However, my judgment—which I believe is also the judgment of the whole House—was that it was entirely appropriate to seek that injunction: to protect the interests of the Lawrence family, of the police service and, above all, of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me questions about the inquiry that my permanent secretary will be undertaking and about who will have access to that report. The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until that inquiry is made public.
I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that I was very surprised indeed by the tone of his remarks. I am astonished that he should not recognise that there is a profound difference between a run-of-the-mill Government publication and the report of a judicial inquiry; and that, in these circumstances, it was entirely appropriate for me to seek that injunction, which stands.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a member of the National Union of Journalists—which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is—and as a former shadow Home Secretary—which the right hon. Gentleman soon will be—may I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that we are witnessing an instructive example of two legitimate positions in a democracy: a newspaper that has got hold of a document of public interest, which it has decided it wishes to publish; and a Home Secretary who wishes to protect the date of publication of a report of which he is custodian? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position of the Conservatives is not legitimate? They pursued Sarah Tisdall into gaol for a minor leak. They tried to put Clive Ponting into gaol. They pursued the "Spycatcher" issue to Australia in an effort, not to postpone publication but to suppress the book, resulting in the invention of the phrase "economical with the truth"—a phrase that applies to the Tory party.
Mr. Straw: Yes. The Conservatives are the last people from whom we should take lectures, given their record.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wholly agree with the Home Secretary that the public interest in freedom of expression is not well served by advance headlining of selective findings from a judicial inquiry to be published in its entirety within a few days. We should recognise that the press has spotlit the Lawrence case in the past and sustained public concern, but I hope that the premature pickings will in no way blunt the edge of the full Macpherson report when it is published.
The culture that we are living in stems from the previous Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was a
26
member. We well remember the efforts that were made to manipulate the Scott inquiry. Does the Home Secretary accept that relentless Government spin and off-the-record briefings have made the publication of such judicial inquiries a matter of great difficulty, and that it might be better to require the findings of such an inquiry to be handled in the same way as the judgments of a court, leaving publication to the judge?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his support for my position. I entirely accept that reports of such judicial inquiries must be handled carefully. In my opening remarks I drew a parallel between such a report and the judgment of a court of law. Given that I established the inquiry, it could be published only to Parliament. I had laid careful plans to ensure that there was no briefing before the publication of the report and that it was made available to Parliament alone first.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that the principle of reporting to Parliament is so fundamental that we deprecate any attempt by anyone to get round the rules just to protect a paper's circulation? It should be generally understood that the principle of free speech commands the support of the public, but it also gives everyone the responsibility of playing according to the rules. Those who cheat do nothing to support the idea of a responsible and sensible press.
Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view. It is essential that all Members of Parliament show respect for this House above all and ensure that all important statements, including the reports of inquiries, are made available to the House first.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary not understand that his behaviour over the weekend and his statement to the House have been greeted with such a lack of respect because he is a senior member of a Government who have institutionalised leaking? Given the complaints that have been made here and elsewhere over the past 20 months, to try to tell the House that the Government believe in the primacy of Parliament brings the right hon. Gentleman into contempt. Will he ask his permanent secretary and Sir Richard Wilson to place in the Library of the House a list of all conversations involving Ministers, special advisers and members of press offices—in the Cabinet Office, No. 10 and the Home Office—over the past four days that relate to the issue in any way? That may allow us better to test some of the Home Secretary's statements.
Mr. Straw: I reject the right hon. Gentleman's central allegation. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the statement on severe personality disorders that I made in the House last Monday and, to pick up on that point, it is simply untrue and incorrect—as I made clear yesterday—that there was any prior briefing of newspapers by my Department or by special advisers. I make that absolutely clear.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked me to place in the Library certain records relating to contacts between members of the Government and journalists regarding the

27
report. I have discussed the contents of the Lawrence inquiry report with no journalist at any time. The other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be dealt with by the inquiry by my permanent secretary and the Home Office.
Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there would have been a different row today had he not taken action regarding the court case, with Opposition Members demanding to know why there had been no statement from him on the Lawrence affair in view of the leak in the press? In all the years since Stephen Lawrence was put to death—during which no one has been convicted of that racist murder—I have never seen the sort of fury that we have had from the Tories today. They are furious about the court injunction—they have never seemed furious about the lack of justice in terms of bringing racist thugs to court.
Mr. Straw: There has been widespread concern about the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence, which I hope is widely shared across the House. My hon. Friend is entirely right that had I not sought the injunction in those particular circumstances, there would have been exactly the opposite complaint from the Opposition, who would have complained that I had not sought an injunction to preserve the integrity of Parliament.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be on the record, and will be judged by those who care to look back. The Home Secretary was right to set up the inquiry, and much good will come from the bad things that have been reported to it. Many will look with interest at the inquiry's conclusions and recommendations. Today's statement was not about that—it was about the injunction.
Who is the Minister responsible for the freedoms—not the controls—of the press? If it is not the Home Secretary, was that Minister consulted before the injunction was applied for? Most importantly, given that the presses have been stopped once because of Government action, could there be consultation between the Lord Chancellor, Alastair Campbell and the Prime Minister so that a cast-iron guarantee can be given that the Government never again will do what they did on Saturday night?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for policy relating to the press. I did not consult him on Saturday. This was a decision that I made, and for which I am personally responsible. The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that we never again seek an injunction in circumstances such as those which faced me on Saturday night. I am afraid that I cannot give him that undertaking. I do not believe that circumstances will often arise—they have not done so often in the past—where what a Secretary of State is seeking to protect is not a policy White Paper or a document for which it would be self-serving to seek to obtain an injunction because the document was an embarrassment to the Government: something that the Tory Government often did.
This document was not remotely embarrassing to the Government, and contained the contents of a judicial inquiry. I remain astonished that not a single Tory
28
Member seems to believe that a report of a full judicial inquiry should have been made public in full to Parliament first, and that it was right for me to seek to protect the position of Parliament.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whoever leaked the findings of the Macpherson report to The Sunday Telegraph did not have at heart the best interests of the Lawrence family and natural justice? The Lawrences have had to listen to Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all commenting on partial disclosure of a report that they have not seen. They must be concerned that the impact of an important and serious report has been blunted by that disclosure.
As for the synthetic indignation of Tory spokesmen, Londoners and Britain's black and Asian community will judge the way in which they have made such a song and dance of what is essentially a side issue, when it is clear that they will fall curiously silent when it comes to a serious debate about the serious issues concerning institutional racism with which the Macpherson report deals.
Mr. Straw: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I find it extraordinary, given the huge distress that the Lawrence family have suffered in the nearly six years since their son was murdered, that Conservative Members seem to brush aside the concern that was uppermost in my mind when I sought the injunction, which was to prevent the family from suffering further distress in the three days leading up to the publication of the inquiry's report. Far from suppressing publication of the report, I was seeking to ensure that it was published in full, but in an orderly manner, to the House and to the public.
Mr. Roger Gale: I happen to believe that the right to a fair hearing extends not only to the family of Stephen Lawrence but to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I agree that the report should have been made available to Parliament first. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, the Government have institutionalised leaks: material is released before it is announced to Parliament, on the "Today" programme on Radio 4, virtually every morning of any week.
The Home Secretary said that the report was different from what he described as the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Government document. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you would agree that he should give the House an assurance that, from now on, every Government document of any kind will be made available to Parliament before it is made available to the press.
Mr. Straw: Of course there is a distinction between an ordinary White Paper, for which it would be entirely disproportionate, even if it were leaked, for Ministers to seek an injunction to prevent its prior publication, and a report of the result of a full judicial inquiry. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman fails to note that distinction. He is entirely right that not only the Lawrence family but the Commissioner are entitled to a fair hearing and the respect of Parliament. I believe that he has been placed in a nigh impossible position as a result of the prior publication of the report.
Mr. Clive Soley: Am I right in thinking that, had the report been published

29
in full on Wednesday, as planned, the people and organisations involved would have been able to read it and be ready to respond to questions from the media? That right has been taken away from them by the leak. Are not freedom and responsibility of the press two sides of the same coin?
Mr. Straw: That is entirely right. We understand that, if the press get hold of such a document, they will consider it their duty to publish it, and I make no particular complaint about that; but we have other responsibilities. My anger is directed at the individual or individuals who may have leaked the report to the journalists, and I direct that anger on behalf of the Lawrence family, on behalf of the police, who have been placed in an extremely difficult position as a result of the prior publication, and—I say it with respect, Madam Speaker—on behalf of the House.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Home Secretary really think that it is defensible, when considering respect for Parliament, to make a distinction between what he describes as ordinary, run-of-the-mill statements, and reports of judicial inquiries under the Police Act? Are we really to expect the Government to come to Parliament first only once in every 18 years?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misinterpreting what I said, and he knows it. Parliamentary documents should, of course, be made available first to Parliament: I seek to do that and have always done so. If that is his proposition, I agree with him. However, I disagree with the proposition that there is no distinction between a White Paper and the report of a full judicial inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I repeat that it would be disproportionate and out of the question for Ministers to seek to use injunctive powers to prevent the prior publication of a White Paper, and it would be unlikely that any judge would grant such an application. The judge must consider whether publication is contrary to the public interest and, in this case, it was the judge—not me—who made that judgment, given all the circumstances surrounding the publication of this report by a judicial inquiry.
Mr. Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend was right to act in the way he did at the weekend, and he was right to want to come to Parliament first. I thank him for allowing the Lawrence family to see the report today, which was the correct and compassionate thing to do. Does he share my disgust at the attitude of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in seeking to play politics with the issues of race and racism, when he and the Conservative party did nothing to deal with those issues when they were in government?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the action that I took. I would take such action again, if faced with similar circumstances. However, I do not share my hon. Friend's view of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, because his record in Parliament is one of opposition to racism. It remains the fact that it was left to me to set up the inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence, because the request was
30
refused by my predecessor. However, that was not the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, I fear that he has been guilty of political ineptitude this weekend. Does he agree that he made a false point in defending his application for the injunction? He said that one of the reasons he applied for it was to protect Sir William Macpherson of Cluny because he might be liable for any unauthorised publication. However, that retired judge would not be liable for any unauthorised publication of the report because he was not responsible for the leaking of the document. The leaking of the document emanated from the Government.
Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a false assumption at the end of his question.
Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no journalist can seriously maintain that any issue of freedom of the press was involved in enjoining newspapers not to publish the contents of the report until Wednesday—despite the false indignation of many leader writers—because newspapers are happy to withhold the entire contents of Government reports for two or three days when offered to them under embargo? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only issue involved here is that of courtesy—to the Lawrence family, to the Metropolitan police Commissioner and to the House?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend speaks from great experience as a journalist—
Sir Norman Fowler: Ex-journalist.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says ex-journalist, but I do not think that he is correct. Many of the complaints in the press today are both predictable and synthetic, because my actions were not remotely an attack on the freedom of the press, given that the report will be published in full on Wednesday. That point was made eloquently by Mr. Roy Greenslade, the former editor of The Mirror, in The Guardian today.
Mr. Alan Clark: The House would have listened to the Home Secretary with more sympathy if his statement had not come against a background of two and a half years of consistent, widespread, tendentious and selective briefing by almost every Department in Whitehall. Is he serious about trying to trace this leak? He has not answered the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), including how many copies of the document there were, to whom they were circulated and whether they were numbered.
Mr. Straw: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's point, I can tell him that we are very serious about tracing the leak, and that is why an inquiry by the permanent secretary at the Home Office has been established.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House has heard on two occasions allegations about institutionalised

31
leaking by the Government. The last time that a judicial inquiry was held—the full judicial review by Lady Butler-Sloss of the Cleveland child abuse crisis—was under the previous Government, when the then Department of Health and Social Security leaked the entire summary of conclusions to the Press Association. Will my right hon. Friend confirm again that Parliament must assert its rights in the interests of the people to whom we are accountable, who include the Lawrence family and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis?
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the injunction was not lifted, but that it was merely varied, on the grounds that the information published in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Telegraph was already in the public domain? Is not that judgment in accordance with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of showing proper respect to Parliament, and his implication that the last people able to lecture us about that are members of the previous Government.
With regard to the injunction, anyone reading this morning's newspapers would think that it had been lifted. In fact, The Sunday Telegraph consented—indeed, it proposed—that the injunction should remain in force in respect of that part of the report that was not yet in the public domain. The injunction was lifted only in respect of that part of the report that had entered the public domain, even though the injunction had been granted on Saturday night.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Home Secretary agree that his protestations on behalf of Parliament, welcome as they are, would ring a lot truer had he not been a member of an Opposition who sought every opportunity to exploit leaked documents—given to them by civil servants and others—to discredit the previous Government?
The Home Secretary did not answer the question about the number of documents that were in circulation posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). He owes it to the House to give those figures. Were the documents numbered? Were any civil servants—in the Home Office or in other Whitehall Departments—authorised to give selective briefings to journalists? Were any briefings given, authorised or otherwise?
Mr. Straw: I am not disclosing the security arrangements that we made in respect of the document, precisely because an inquiry into how the leak happened has been established and because any such disclosure would be prejudicial to that inquiry, for reasons that ought to be obvious to the hon. Gentleman.
Will the hon. Gentleman remind me of his other question?
Mr. Howarth: I asked whether any of the Home Secretary's officials were authorised to give briefings of any description.
Mr. Straw: The answer is no.
Mr. John Austin: Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that those who leaked
32
part of the report—and Conservative Members, judging by their subsequent actions—appear to show no concern for the feelings of the Lawrence family? Does he also share my unease that the vitriolic attacks made on him over the weekend, particularly by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), seemed to divert attention from the substance of that very important report?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to take the very difficult decision to set up the judicial inquiry. The hon. Member for Worthing, West used to represent Eltham, and immediately after the last general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) approached his predecessor to ask him to put his name to an all-party early-day motion calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence's death. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Worthing, West declined, and would my right hon. Friend care to comment?
Mr. Straw: It is not for me to offer an explanation of the view taken by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who must explain himself. However, I have to say that, in my experience, the hon. Gentleman has shown considerable support for the Lawrence family.
I am grateful for the support expressed by my hon. Friend for my establishment of the inquiry, and for the fact that I have sought to protect the family, the police and the House from the premature publication of the report.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Home Secretary accept that there is nothing synthetic about the charge that the handling of a very important document has been unfortunate and unhappy? In relation to the rumours currently circulating about briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—of which, I am sure, he knows nothing, and which I am sure he would not want—can the Home Secretary assure the House that there is no such briefing?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that an unfortunate and unhappy set of events led to the leaking of part of the report. The whole House—whatever view Members may take of the injunction—will wholly condemn that leak.
Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no truck whatever with any briefing against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Indeed, my view is quite the reverse. I have today recorded my acknowledgement of the fine work done by the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police over many years. There are many examples, of which the best is the most recent—namely, the expertise and skill employed in policing the occupation of the Greek embassy, which ensured a peaceful end in circumstances that might have turned out otherwise.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to protect the interests of Back-Bench Members who often do not get to hear things first? I also congratulate him on the sensitivity with which he considered the interests of the Lawrence family, which are more important than even our interests.

33
Will my right hon. Friend comment on two allegations made on "Today" this morning? First, The Sunday Telegraph alleged that the Lawrence family had agreed to publication, or was not opposed to it. Secondly, and more importantly, the Police Federation spokesman claimed that the Home Office had been leaking for 10 weeks, which appears unlikely given the timetable under which the report reached the Home Secretary's attention.
Mr. Straw: On suggestions that the Lawrence family have not been opposed to publication, I cannot offer any insight into conversations that may or may not have taken place between The Sunday Telegraph and the representatives—or alleged representatives—of the family. However, as I have said to the House, solicitors acting for the family have made clear their understanding of the course of action that I took on the family's behalf. The suggestion that the Home Office had been leaking the report for 10 weeks—or even for 10 minutes—is wholly untrue.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not it true that the real harm done to the Lawrence family occurred when Stephen was killed and when the investigation was botched? How can the Home Secretary think that the leaking of the report a couple of days early will have terrible effects on the Lawrence family after all else that they have been through? Is he aware of a report in today's Evening Standard, not—so far—injuncted? It states:
"Such leaks come week in and week out, many of them from members of the Cabinet."
The report also notes
"well-sourced suspicions that the culprit is a junior Home Office Minister."
If the culprit is a junior Minister, and if one Labour Minister has had to seek an injunction as a result of the actions of another, will that junior Minister be sacked if he is found out?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman asked about distress caused to the Lawrence family, suggesting that any distress subsequent to the murder itself pales into
34
insignificance. I do not accept that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has spoken eloquently for both the Lawrence family and for a great many people—especially among the black community—on the profound sense of hurt felt about both the murder and all that has followed since.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the reaction of our press? Does he believe that the currency of the freedom of the press, which the House unanimously believes is important, has been devalued by today's press? The newspapers appear to be interested in protecting not the interests of the British public, but their own circulation and pecuniary interests. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us are extremely angry that, right at the end of a series of injustices, there has been yet another injustice whereby someone, for some reason unknown to us, has leaked the results of the inquiry in an unfair and unreasonable manner? Will he ensure that appropriate and firm punishment is meted out to anyone who is found to have leaked the document?
Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's views. As for the outcome of any leak inquiry, we must wait to see what conclusion it comes to.
Mr. Richard Allan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has already expressed our view that the public interest and the fight against racism are better served by full, rather than partial, publication of the report. Will the Home Secretary clarify the expected timetable for the full publication on Wednesday; and, in particular, tell the House whether any public line will be expressed by the Government before the hour at which he comes to the House to make his statement?
Mr. Straw: As you know, Madam Speaker, the current arrangements are that I should make the report available at 3.30 pm on Wednesday, with copies available in the Vote Office, and make an oral statement to the House. That will be the first public statement that I shall make.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You heard the Home Secretary say that he believed that there was a fundamental difference between Government White Papers and other documents. Will you rule from the Chair, so that the House and Ministers are absolutely clear, that all Government papers should be made available to Members of Parliament before being given to the press?
Madam Speaker: The House and all Ministers are well aware of my strong views on that matter. All Government documents and all documents handled by the Government should be made available to the House before going into public circulation.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were recently kind enough to allow me to raise a point of order on an issue of great concern to my constituents—the future of the buildings of the staff college in Camberley. As you know, I tabled a question on the subject which was, unfortunately, not reached during Defence questions this afternoon. You will be concerned to learn of the information that has subsequently reached me: that, during the few days before the local press, quoting extensively an MOD spokeswoman, reported on the proposal to convert the staff college into luxury flats, there was a briefing by MOD employees of senior local government officers; and that, during that briefing, an MOD official spoke to officers of the local council and indicated that among those who must not, in any circumstances, be told of the proposal were elected councillors of Surrey Heath council and the local Member of Parliament. Have you received any indication from MOD Ministers about whether they propose to make any further statements about the matter? Will you express your concern that, once again—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's previous point of order on the subject and I regret that his very direct question was not reached this afternoon—to be frank, I had hoped that we would make better progress on Defence questions. It is not for me to
36
comment on the issue he raises; it is a matter for exchange of views across the Floor of the House. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman apply for an Adjournment debate, in which he will be able to debate the issue fully, rather than confine himself to tabling parliamentary questions?
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recollect that, back in 1986, when American bombers left this country to raid Tripoli and Benghazi, there were many eloquent points of order raised by then Opposition Front Benchers about the precise nature of the arrangement between Her Majesty's Government at that time and the American Administration. Have you received any requests for a statement, or for a question to be answered, in respect of the exact terms of reference of the B52s that apparently might operate from British soil? Given that those huge bombers wreak absolute devastation wherever they go, is not the whole relationship between ourselves and the Americans on the matter of prime importance?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that my memory does not extend to that particular situation in 1986. However, Question 2 on the Order Paper referred to the deployment of personnel in south-east Europe, and I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State for Defence, who widened the scope of the question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was fortunate enough to catch my eye on that question and he put his point to the Secretary of State. I have not heard from the Government that Ministers are seeking to make a statement on that issue at this time.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance in light of inquiries that have already been made. In view of the importance that you attach to statements being made to the House before their contents are conveyed to the public, do you agree that it is of the utmost importance that the outcome of the leak investigation, which the Home Secretary announced this afternoon, should be reported first to Parliament before it is revealed to the public? Pursuant to that point, Madam Speaker, have you had any indication that that is the intention of Ministers?
Madam Speaker: I have had no indication of that sort and it is for the Home Secretary to determine the matter.

Orders of the Day

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.26 pm
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 15 minutes.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill represents the most fundamental reform of immigration and asylum law for decades. The size of the Bill—nearly 140 clauses with 14 schedules—and the range of its provisions reflect the Government's commitment to delivering the comprehensive and integrated strategy set out in our White Paper last July. Within a modern framework of law, the aim—to quote the title of the White Paper—is to make the system fairer, faster and firmer. We want a fairer system that reflects our commitment to race equality and human rights; we want a faster system that is able to deal quickly with all applicants, whether visiting this country or seeking to remain here longer; and we want a firmer system, with strong controls at ports and effective enforcement against those not entitled to stay. This Bill is vital in helping to deliver those objectives.
  The Bill is also essential in helping to deal with the increasing number of asylum seekers. We are not alone in facing such pressures: other European countries have faced similar increases. Indeed, when relative population is taken into account, 10 other European countries receive more applicants than we do. We will continue to protect genuine refugees, but we will deal firmly with those who seek to exploit the system.
  Part 1 contains important provisions to make the operation of immigration controls more flexible and effective. For example, the Bill will enable a visa itself to confer leave to enter so as to streamline procedures at ports. The Secretary of State, as well as immigration officers, will be able to grant or refuse leave to enter and so minimise duplication of effort in handling certain types of casework. The current power to charge for settlement applications is widened to other after-entry applications and the powers of the immigration service to require passenger information are strengthened to enable better targeting of resources and improved inter-agency co-operation. However, those provisions will not change the fundamental basis on which our immigration control operates. All arriving passengers will continue to be seen by immigration staff and may be refused entry if they do not qualify.
  Enforcement must be backed by the criminal law, so this part of the Bill extends the scope of the existing offences of obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception and increases the maximum term of imprisonment from six months to two years. However, as the House knows, the Government are as committed to stamping out racial discrimination as we are to ensuring a firm immigration control. Clause 13 re-emphasizes to employers their duty to avoid racial discrimination in their
  38
  recruitment practices when seeking to secure the statutory defence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It places on me a statutory duty to issue a code of practice aimed at ensuring that employers do not breach the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.
  In recent years, extensive efforts have been made to reduce the opportunity for illegal immigration for those coming in by air, train or ferry. The previous Government introduced the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. I extended its application to Eurostar trains from Belgium, and the French authorities have considerably tightened their embarkation controls on passengers leaving the Gare du Nord in Paris for the United Kingdom. I have introduced visa regimes for Ecuador, Colombia and Slovakia, and direct airside transit visas for other countries. As these controls have worked, not perfectly but effectively, traffickers in illegal migrants have sought other routes.
  Hon. Members will be well aware that over recent months many clandestine entrants have emerged from the backs of lorries and other vehicles, some at seaports and some on the verges of motorways, many miles from a port. About 8,000 clandestine entrants were detected in 1998 compared with fewer than 500 in 1992. Illegal immigration on this scale represents a serious threat to the integrity of the control and costs the taxpayer many millions of pounds. It is unfair to those who enter lawfully and we are determined to tackle it.
  Part II provides for a new civil penalty to apply for each clandestine entrant brought to the United Kingdom concealed in any vehicle, ship or aircraft. There will be joint liability between the owner, hirer and driver of a vehicle, but only one penalty—probably of £2,000—will he charged for each entrant. The Bill includes a power to impound and, if necessary, to sell, a vehicle or small ship or aircraft if there is a significant risk that the penalty will not otherwise be paid.
  The new penalty is a key part of a wider strategy, including strengthening international co-operation, to tackle illegal immigration; but the Government are in no doubt that the responsibility for what vehicles carry into the United Kingdom must ultimately rest with the owner, the hirer and the driver. The Bill provides for certain defences for those who can demonstrate—the onus is on them—that they have an effective system in place which has been properly operated. There is also a power for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice setting out the procedures that should be followed by road hauliers and others who operate a system to prevent clandestine entrants from using their vehicles. We will continue to discuss the detailed operation of the new regime with the industry and unions.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I represent Portsmouth which, being a seaport, is plagued with this problem. Some drivers are seeking assistance from the Home Office to put facilities in place at continental ports to enable vehicles to be properly checked, so that they can then return to the UK without clandestine immigrants. Is the Home Secretary considering ways to support such proposals financially?
  Mr. Straw: We are certainly looking at ways to assist drivers. I cannot promise financial support, but we are seeking to assist the road haulage industry to secure

  39
  improvements in the checking carried out on the other side of the channel. Indeed, that has already happened at, I understand, Zeebrugge. Next month, I shall almost certainly go to see Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the French Minister of the Interior, to see whether controls and checks can be strengthened in the Pas de Calais, where many of the problems arise. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I, too, have had representations from road hauliers who are particularly concerned that if they carry out the inspections proposed in the Bill and declare in France that they have someone on board who should not be there, their vehicles could be impounded and they themselves could have to answer to the local magistrate, thus delaying their journey by 24 hours. There is therefore an incentive for them not to declare, while they are in France, that they have picked someone up. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board when he discusses the matter with his colleagues in France?
  Mr. Straw: We want to secure effective arrangements in co-operation with the road haulage industry, so I accept the need for those discussions to take place. I do not accept my hon. Friend's assumption that there is any incentive for a driver or road haulier who knows, while he is on the other side of the channel, that there is an illegal migrant in the back of his lorry, then to bring that person into this country. If people act in that irresponsible way, the penalty will be imposed on them. On the other hand, if they follow the procedures, exercise reasonable care and follow the code of practice, and it then turns out that they have an illegal migrant on board, they will have a defence against the charge.
  Clauses 25 to 27 replace, with amendments, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which is to be repealed. Carriers' liability legislation is an important tool in reducing the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom without the proper documentation. The Bill strengthens the existing law in a number of ways. In particular, part II extends carriers' liability to buses and coaches. That will plug an important loophole and create a level playing field with other carriers. It also provides a power to detain, and if necessary to sell, a vehicle, ship or aircraft in order to secure payment of carriers' liability charges.
  I come now to the provisions of the Bill that deal with the arrangements for immigration detainees. I make no apology for the use of detention. It is necessary in a small number of cases, but there must be proper safeguards. Part III fulfils the commitment in the White Paper to introduce a more extensive judicial element in the detention process. That will be achieved by introducing routine bail hearings for those detained under immigration legislation.
  At present, there is little in statute that governs the operation and management of immigration detention centres. That is accepted in all parts of the House as unsatisfactory. Part VIII provides a proper statutory framework for all aspects of the management and administration of detention centres and for the escort of detainees. Those provisions, together with those for routine bail hearings, will provide additional safeguards
  40
  for detainees, improve the management of detention centres and establish clearly the powers of detainee custody officers.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: With regard to bail, can my right hon. Friend clarify what the presumptions will be? Will the presumption of the Bail Act 1976 apply, so that it will be presumed that bail will be granted unless there is good reason not to grant it? Furthermore, will it be possible in a judicial hearing to raise the question not only whether someone should be released, but whether that person should legally have been detained in the first place?
  Mr. Straw: It will not be possible in the bail proceedings to raise the issue of the lawfulness or otherwise of the detention. That is a matter that must be dealt with under process for habeas corpus. We do not intend to change that, for good reasons.
  I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend comfort on his first point, either. Because of the special circumstances of immigration detention, which is used in only a relatively small number of cases and as a last resort, I did not judge it appropriate that there should be the same assumptions about the availability of bail as there are in the Bail Act 1976. However, what we are doing is consistent with the discussions that my hon. Friend and I and many other colleagues had in opposition. We are laying down, for the first time, that all detainees will have a right to apply for bail.
  Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the asylum to be granted to people who applied for asylum in this country before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force will not extend to those who have since committed a serious criminal offence in this country? That is not a matter to which the Bill addresses itself.
  Mr. Straw: Yes. For practical reasons, the emphasis must be on the word "serious". Where such people have committed serious criminal offences, we do not intend to make the arrangements for dealing with that backlog in the manner otherwise described in the White Paper.
  Part IV deals with immigration and asylum appeals. Reform of the appeals system is fundamental to the Government's long-term strategy for a fair, fast and firm immigration and asylum system. The current system is complex, and the existing multiple rights of appeal delay the final resolution of cases. They enable those who have no legitimate basis to remain in the United Kingdom to manipulate the system and prolong their stay here. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had long experience of the way in which people with no basis to remain in this country have been able to string out their stay, sometimes for years, by multiple and successive appeals.
  The existing structure of successive rights of appeal will therefore be replaced by a one-stop comprehensive appeal that will cover all appealable aspects of a case at one go. When an application is refused, the applicant will be invited to set out all the grounds on which he wishes to remain in the United Kingdom, including asylum, the European convention on human rights or compassionate grounds.

  41
  The subsequent appeal will then consider all the factors in the case on which an appeal may be brought. Unless a ground for staying in the United Kingdom has been set out at this stage, it cannot form the basis for an appeal by the applicant unless he had reasonable excuse for not mentioning it when invited to do so; or, in asylum and ECHR cases, provided the claim is not being made to frustrate removal.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome a much more streamlined appeal system but I ask the Home Secretary whether he can do something else to reduce the pressure on the system, namely, to allow those who are applying to come to this country as visitors or students, and who have no previous record or family record of ever having breached any rules, to come here on the presumption that they will behave themselves, rather than the presumption that they will not. I have many constituents who are absolutely law abiding who have families wishing to come to this country for weddings, funerals or to study. They are applying to come here and being turned down. They are then applying again, being turned down and appealing. The system is clogged up hugely by them when there is no reason why they should be treated so badly by our people at their points of application.
  Mr. Straw: They are very lucky if they are family visitors and they appeal, because the right of appeal was abolished by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Our complaint, which I shall come to, has been the absence of a right of appeal for family visitors, and that we intend to put right.
  In future, in-country rights of appeal will be restricted to persons who are lawfully present at the time when they apply for further permission to remain and where an adverse decision would be required for their departure. Those here unlawfully, such as overstayers, will be subject to removal under clause 6 of part I rather than deportation, just as illegal entrants are now. However, in accordance with our international obligations, applicants claiming asylum or ECHR rights will have a right of appeal, even if they are not lawfully present when they make their claim. Someone who is refused asylum, but granted limited leave, will have a right of appeal against his asylum refusal.
  We also think that modernisation of the immigration appellate authorities is needed. We want the immigration adjudicators to be able to deal with cases quickly and fairly, and we want the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to continue to develop as the central authoritative guide to immigration and asylum law. I pay tribute to all that Judge Pearl, formerly the chief adjudicator and now the president of the tribunal, and Judge Dunn QC, his successor as chief adjudicator, and their colleagues have done to improve decision making and reduce waiting times.
  At adjudicator level, waiting times are now down to about 16 weeks, from delays of more than a year, which we inherited in May 1997. There are still delays at tribunal level, which are not the fault of the tribunal itself. However, the Lord Chancellor is in the process of appointing new members and these delays should reduce sharply when the appointments are made.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Home Secretary give the logic behind the recently reported
  42
  decision to withdraw support from asylum seekers who take out judicial review of their appeal? Surely it would be better to continue to support an asylum seeker where a court has decided that he or she should have leave for judicial review. There must be merit in the case if the court made that decision.
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me until I deal with support arrangements. If I do not satisfy him then, I shall take an intervention from him.
  Part of the purpose of our streamlining the appeal system and making the appellate tribunal more authoritative is to reduce the grounds for judicial review, which I happen to think is very important. There has been—this view is held by immigration officers and, for example, by judges of the High Court who have to operate the Crown Office list—something of an abuse of the option of applying for judicial review, simply as another means of spinning out someone's stay when it is not otherwise justified.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that at an appeal, where the opportunity for one exists, there will be an opportunity to argue compassionate circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that in every appeal that is envisaged within the Government's proposals for people who are in the United Kingdom, the compassionate circumstances of their case as are currently set out in the immigration rules that relate to deportation appeals will be able to be considered?
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot give the guarantee that she seeks. I understand her point, which we have discussed outside the House. I suggest that she has raised one of those important but detailed issues which should sensibly be pursued in the Special Standing Committee, if the House decides to establish it at the end of today's debate.
  The Bill will give adjudicators clear and effective powers to deal summarily with appeals that are not being seriously pursued, so that they can concentrate on the cases of substance. The Bill will make the tribunal more of an effective and professionally expert appellate body. The reforms that the Government are proposing to the legal aid system should help to put an end to the waste of public money on poor legal advice to asylum seekers and to the pursuit of unmeritorious cases at public expense.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The Home Secretary will find that I am a critic of some parts of the Bill, but I see hundreds of applications for judicial review every month and most of them—[Interruption.] Yes, I see hundreds every month. Most of the applications that I see are wholly spurious and I have begun to go back to some solicitors to ask them why they are giving such poor advice to my constituents.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record—it is absolutely true. What she describes brings the law into disrepute, is a waste of public money and, above all, harms those of our constituents with genuine and justifiable cases for going for judicial review, but they are few and far between. As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor is making extensive reforms to the legal aid system, better to ensure

  43
  that solicitors are not able unjustifiably to milk the system to make a bit of money for themselves and string out the prospect of their client remaining in this country.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will then give way.
  Overall, the aim of these measures is to meet the target set out in the White Paper of two months for an initial decision and four months thereafter for any appeal to have to be dealt with. Those are challenging targets. They depend not only on this legislation, but on the additional investment that we are making to speed up the system.
  Much of what I have spoken about today is to do with tightening controls on illegal immigration and against the abuse of the asylum process, but immigration control must also act fairly in respect of all those lawfully resident in this country who, for example, wish to receive visits from family members abroad. One of the provisions of the 1993 Act for which I always thought that there was the least justification was the removal of any right of appeal for such visitors.
  Those of us with Afro-Caribbean or south Asian constituents, for example, know at first hand of the strong sense of injustice that the abolition of the right of appeal has engendered among many of our constituents. That is no criticism whatever of the work of entry clearance officers at British posts abroad; it is a criticism of the principle that such decisions should not be subject to any further independent adjudication.
  Part IV therefore fulfils our manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. Provision may be made by regulations that those who wish to appeal will have to meet the costs of doing so, but fees would be refunded to those whose appeals were allowed.
  A related issue is that of a bond scheme. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked, as I often have in my constituency surgeries, why their constituents cannot give some form of financial guarantee that a relative wishing to visit them will leave at the end of the visit. Part I therefore makes provision for a financial security, or bond, to be required or accepted where visitors apply for an entry clearance. The bond would be forfeit if the visitor did not leave the United Kingdom and we will run a pilot to test the merits of such a scheme before deciding on its wider use.
  Part V fulfils a further manifesto—
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the question of visitors' appeals?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).
  Mr. Kaufman: I, on behalf of my constituents, appreciate very much the fulfilment of the manifesto commitment on this matter. From his constituency
  44
  experience, my right hon. Friend will know that, although some family visits have no fixed point and can take place at any time, specific visits relating to weddings and funerals have a fixed point. In view of the fact that an appeal would be pointless if it went beyond the date of a wedding or a funeral, will he consider the possibility of a fast-track system for appeals on those matters only?
  Mr. Straw: The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. That issue has caused great frustration, to my constituents as well as to his, and we will certainly look at it very carefully.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Bill will be referred to a Special Standing Committee, which is a welcome procedure. However, he is aware that much of the detail of the proposals is not in the Bill, but will be enshrined in regulations and statutory instruments. Will the Special Standing Committee have an opportunity to consider the drafts of the regulations as well as the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: We are endeavouring to ensure that the Special Standing Committee has as much information as possible. I cannot promise that drafts of all the regulations will be made available at this relatively early stage in the process. However, I can promise that the process manual and the information manual relating to the support scheme will be made available to the Committee. We will get as much information to the Committee as we can.
  Part V of the Bill deals with immigration advisers and immigration service providers, and fulfils a further manifesto commitment to regulate immigration advisers. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who first exposed the scandalous behaviour of some of these people, and I pay tribute to him for his work. Like my hon. Friend and me, many colleagues in the House have received endless complaints from their constituents about the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. They cheat their clients and manipulate the system for their own profit. We intend to put them out of business.
  The Bill will create a statutory scheme for regulating both unqualified and—to a degree—legally qualified advisers. It will be a criminal offence—punishable on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both—to provide advice in breach of the scheme.
  Part V also makes provision for the appointment of an immigration services commissioner, who will be responsible for administering the regulation of advisers. Only those who are registered with the commissioner, who are members of designated professional bodies, or who are otherwise exempt, will be permitted to give immigration advice and services.
  The commissioner will investigate complaints against registered immigration advisers, in the light of which he may withdraw registration or, in certain cases, lay a disciplinary charge. There will be an immigration services tribunal to hear any disciplinary charges laid by the commissioner, and to which any person aggrieved at a decision by the commissioner may appeal.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should give greater publicity to advisory services, such as the Manchester Immigration

  45
  and Advisory Service, which offer a free service to clients, thus preventing them from being ripped off by the very advisers to which my right hon. Friend refers?
  Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My constituents have received good advice from the Manchester Immigration and Advisory Service. I am constantly surprised by how many of the constituents I see each Friday have had large sums of money taken from them either by unscrupulous and unqualified advisers or by less than skilful lawyers, when they could have got far better advice for nothing from bodies such as the IAS.
  Mr. Hancock rose—
  Mr. Straw: Many hon. Members want to speak, so I must make some progress.
  I shall now turn to part VI, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It contains provisions for a new, national system of support for asylum seekers in genuine need. The current arrangements are a shambles. Cash benefits are available to those who seek asylum at ports of entry until their claims are decided. Beyond that point, they are at risk of destitution. Those who apply in-country are also denied benefits, and under the provisions of the immigration and asylum legislation are immediately at risk of destitution. This impossible result of the 1996 Act led to intervention by the courts, which has meant that, in such cases, the burden of supporting asylum seekers has instead fallen on local authorities. That burden has been particularly acute in London and the south-east.
  We are past the point at which we can tinker with the system: radical reform is needed. We must be able to provide support to those in genuine need, but we must do so in a way that minimises the incentive to economic migrants who undermine public support for genuine refugees.
  Under the provisions in part VI, support will be provided separately from the main benefit system. The only exception will be unaccompanied children, for whom existing arrangements under the Children Acts will continue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall make progress, then I shall accept a couple of interventions.
  The new scheme will be administered by the Home Office. Accommodation will be offered on a no-choice basis, just as it may be in respect of United Kingdom residents who present themselves as homeless, usually where accommodation is more readily available outside London and the south-east. That does not mean that asylum seekers will be placed in isolated or derelict accommodation. Accommodation is likely to be in clusters, taking account as far as possible of support available from existing communities. Other support will be mainly in kind or in vouchers, with cash payments kept to a minimum. Support will be given only to those who are destitute or who are likely to become destitute. If an asylum seeker has accommodation—for example, because he or she can stay with family or friends—he or she may be given living expenses only. In the case of families with children, support will continue until removal from the
  46
  country. Otherwise, support will be given until the determination of any appeal to the appropriate appellate authority against a decision to refuse asylum.
  Mr. Iain Coleman: What hard evidence has my right hon. Friend or the Home Office to prove that cash benefits act as an incentive for unfounded asylum seeking?
  Mr. Straw: The evidence is in the figures, which show that, although the cost per head of benefits in kind is slightly higher than that of cash benefits, the take up of cash benefits is very much greater. There is also considerable evidence to suggest that cash benefits act as a "pull factor" in the case of economic migrants from eastern European countries who have no basis whatever for asylum claims. We shall be able to go into that in the Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: What interim proposals has the Home Secretary to deal with the present unacceptable situation in which certain London boroughs are, in effect, making commercial arrangements to dump asylum seekers in places such as Eastbourne, but are unwilling to observe best practice by liaising with my local council to establish the numbers involved, their needs and the back-up required from social services departments and other agencies?
  Mr. Straw: We have provided liaison arrangements, which I helped to broker, between London and other authorities through the Local Government Association, to ensure a relatively smooth transition. If those arrangements are not working, I greatly regret that, and—if the hon. Gentleman writes to me—I will do what I can to bring about better liaison between his local authority and the London boroughs concerned.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are very disturbed about part VI? We feel that the Tory removal of benefits for asylum seekers three years ago was an act of spite and vengeance against refugees, and look to the present Government to restore those benefits. Cash is the cheapest, most efficient and most humane way of delivering benefits. Giving benefits in kind causes asylum seekers a great deal of humiliation; it is inefficient, expensive and, in many cases, completely ineffective, because the families involved will have no cash to pay for any small things that they may need. The system also adds to their sense of difference from the rest of the community. Will not my right hon. Friend look at what was done in 1996, and reverse it?
  Mr. Straw: It is precisely because we looked at what happened in 1996 that we introduced these arrangements. In 1996, the then Government proposed to end any right to any support for anyone who applied for asylum in-country. Because that meant that people would be destitute on the streets, the courts intervened and interpreted the National Assistance Act 1948 as requiring not the Government, but local authorities, to have a duty to provide support in kind in the interim.
  That is wholly unsatisfactory. We have decided, for what I believe to be good reasons, to take away asylum seekers' right to cash benefits, and to take them out of

  47
  the social security system generally. These are not British residents, although they can become British residents if their case for asylum is accepted; these are people who are seeking asylum in this country. I consider it perfectly reasonable for anyone who has a well-founded case for fleeing state persecution in another country to accept that he or she will be given accommodation and support in kind here, on a temporary basis.
  We have sought to secure a proper balance between ensuring that individual asylum seekers are not left destitute, and cutting off the economic incentive for people to come to this country not because they have any serious claim for asylum, but because of the availability of cash benefits. I recognise the anxiety that that causes a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall be able to allay those anxieties through further discussions, particularly in the Special Standing Committee, but, having gone into the matter in huge detail, I believe that the principle that we have established is the best possible.
  Ms Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will allow one more intervention, but then I must proceed with my speech.
  Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend will know of the great concern about the support arrangements in this part of the Bill. One of the many problems is that small groups of asylum seekers far from London and from other minority communities could well turn out to be sitting targets for racist attacks. Has my right hon. Friend sought the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? It is not clear to me that, in principle, the support arrangements meet our international obligations.
  Mr. Straw: We certainly discussed the proposals with UNHCR. I cannot say whether it has endorsed them. If it has not endorsed them, that is not a reason against them. It is entitled to take a different view from us. We have come to a settled view. I certainly judged that, with all the problems that have been caused in several other European countries, it was not appropriate to set up hostels, but it is appropriate to go down the path that is set out in the Bill. We also intend that, by 2001, the initial decision should be made within two months, and that the appeal should be four months thereafter. That is a big difference from the current position.
  Mr. Coleman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I must get on.
  We propose to arrange with local authorities, housing associations, private sector landlords and the voluntary sector for the provision of subsistence and accommodation for asylum seekers. That will be on a normal contractual basis, but the Bill includes a reserve power to direct local authorities to co-operate by providing specified accommodation within a designated reception zone.
  That power would be used as a last resort. We intend that local authorities should be properly reimbursed for any accommodation so provided. We are discussing the
  48
  detail of such safeguards with the local authority associations and will introduce amendments for that purpose during the passage of the Bill.
  When the new asylum support system comes into force, there will be asylum seekers in receipt of income support and housing benefit, or who are supported by local authority social service departments. We will consider in further detail when and how those people can be transferred to the new support arrangements, but I need to make it clear that asylum seekers who have already arrived in this country before the new support arrangements take effect cannot expect their income support and housing benefit cash payments to continue for the duration of the asylum application. Once the new support arrangements come into force, eligibility for cash payments will end. We shall give further consideration to the timing of the transfer to the new support system, but no asylum seeker can have an expectation that, by arriving in this country before the new support arrangements take effect, they will have indefinite access to the social security system.
  Part VII of what is a large Bill concerns immigration officers' power to arrest and to search. Effective enforcement is an essential part of fair and firm immigration control. Under current legislation, immigration officers too often have to rely on a police presence to perform basic, low-key enforcement tasks. Therefore, the part extends immigration officers' existing powers of arrest and, in respect of immigration offences, provides them with powers of search, entry and seizure that are equivalent to those that the police already have.
  With clause 15 in part I, part IX provides marriage registrars with new powers to tackle abuse of marriage for immigration purposes. We have to take firm action to tackle that growing problem. Clause 15 imposes a new statutory duty on marriage registrars throughout the United Kingdom to report suspected sham marriages for immigration purposes to the Home Office. That builds on existing informal arrangements, but if that new duty is to be effective, registrars need greater powers to establish the identity of the parties to the marriage. Therefore, part IX provides powers to request evidence of name, age, marital status and nationality.
  In addition, couples will usually have to give 15 days' notice of their marriage and will have to attend personally to give such notice. If the registrar is not satisfied that the parties are legally free to marry, he may refuse to proceed. There will be a right of appeal to the registrar general.
  The changes in marriage law in Part IX are aimed at the abuse of civil marriage for immigration purposes. They will not in any way affect those who marry in the Church of England or Church in Wales after banns. They will affect civil preliminaries for other religious marriages, but are unlikely to cause any difficulties in practice for genuine couples.
  By any standards, the Bill represents a comprehensive reform of immigration and asylum law. We are continuing to consider the need for additional changes and will introduce amendments as necessary during the Bill's passage. I should inform the House that, in particular, we intend to table amendments to extend fingerprinting—currently applied to asylum seekers—to additional categories of persons, including inadequately documented passengers and all illegal entrants; and to clarify existing powers to charge for additional immigration services at

  49
  ports of entry, and to require certain port facilities, which are needed to operate immigration control properly, to be provided free of charge.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Vaz: My right hon. Friend has not mentioned the situation at the immigration and nationality directorate. He visited it last week and has no doubt seen the article in The Times today. Many of his proposals will add an extra burden to the IND. Will he give an assurance that the situation at the IND, which has been described as a shambles, will be cleared up as soon as possible?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. One of the reasons why, on Thursday last, I went to visit IND in Croydon, was to ensure that I could give such an undertaking.
  Fiona Mactaggart: What about the Siemens contract?
  Mr. Straw: In April 1996, the previous Government entered into the Siemens contract—not the seamen's contract—which was due by now to deliver a fully computerised caseworking system, but it has failed to do so. There is no way out for the previous Government or for the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—
  Mr. James Clappison: Nonsense.
  Mr. Straw: We tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the previous Administration were and remain responsible for the current shambles of the immigration service—[Interruption.] That is the truth. They failed properly to modernise the system and to establish proper specifications for it. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wishes to gainsay that, let him do so in his reply to the debate. The previous Government failed also to invest in other means of modernising the system; it has fallen to the current Government to do so.
  The Bill is essential to deliver the fairer, faster and firmer system to which the Government are committed. It is a large and complex Bill, and it is important that we get it right. Its introduction follows a wide consultation process. In 1995, when we were in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who was then Leader of the Opposition—moved that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. I suggest that, had that Bill been so referred, some of the shambles that has followed in its wake might have been avoided.
  The Government are proposing that this Bill should be considered by a Special Standing Committee. The process should enable Parliament to tap the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House and also of a wide range of outside interest groups, and enable any interested parties to submit written evidence about the Bill's provisions. The Special Standing Committee also will take oral evidence from a range of individuals and organisations. The process will expose the Bill to
  50
  thorough scrutiny and assist the Special Standing Committee in its detailed work. I hope and believe that the process will produce a better Bill.
  When in office, the official Opposition made two attempts—in 1993 and again in 1996—at piecemeal reform, but neither worked as intended. The previous Government's failure properly to plan or to manage the system has left the system with a dreadful inheritance.
  I have read the official Opposition's reasoned amendment to the motion on Second Reading. After all the months that have passed since publication of the White Paper, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield cannot offer a single idea of his own on changing the system, a single comment on how we should modernise the system, or a single criticism on whether we have gone too far or not far enough.
  After all those months of careful consideration about the problems of the immigration system, all that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is able now to propose is that there should be an independent inquiry into the immigration service. All that would accomplish is to delay that which he says is needed—changes to the system to modernise the way in which we deal with immigration and asylum control in the United Kingdom. The proposal is bizarre and eccentric, and I think that he will have some difficulty in convincing the House of its merits.
  The Bill will provide the United Kingdom with a modern, flexible and streamlined system capable of dealing with the ever-growing pressures and demands placed upon it. That system will better serve the interests of all our people—of those entitled to visit or settle here, and the interests of genuine refugees. It will also give immigration staff the powers that they need to operate a modern and efficient system of immigration control. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.9 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst underlining Britain's commitment to genuine refugees but recognising the need to prevent fraudulent claims for political asylum and the widespread public concern on this issue, declines to give the Immigration and Asylum Bill a Second Reading because, before introducing it, the Government failed to establish an independent inquiry to consider what measures should be taken to combat such illegal immigration and because the Bill fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country."
  There were two major points in the Home Secretary's speech with which I agree. First, I agree that we must continue to meet our obligations to genuine political refugees. The United Kingdom has had a proud tradition in that respect, and we should not, and must not turn our back on that policy. It has been followed by successive Governments. I shall say more about that in a moment.
  Secondly, the Conservatives will support any measures that will help us to deal with potential asylum applicants more effectively. That is why we shall not divide on the main Question, which is more than the Labour party did in opposition. We recognise that the numbers have increased vastly over the past 15 years. The majority of applicants these days are not political refugees and they put a social and financial burden on the country.

  51
  I cannot remotely agree, however, with the assertion that the Home Secretary made at the end of his speech that all the problems that we face are the responsibility of the previous Government and that had we only listened to the then Labour Opposition those problems could have been avoided. One of the fundamental problems is that when the Conservative Government sought to tackle the issue, we were fought all the way by the Labour Opposition.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment, but not yet.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I imagine that I need the hon. Gentleman's help about as much as the Home Secretary does.
  The Conservatives' attempts to deal with the problems were opposed by the then Leader of the Opposition and those on their Home Affairs Front Bench. The idea that the Labour Opposition were accusing us of not getting tough enough on social security for political asylum applicants is ludicrous. Their case was that we were exaggerating the problem and our measures were too tough. In November 1992, when the current Prime Minister was shadow Home Secretary, he said that the problem of bogus asylum seekers had been exaggerated. He took comfort in the fact that
  "The number of asylum applications has halved this year compared with last year".—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 36–7.]
  I hope that his economic forecasting is better than his forecasting of the number of applications.
  Mr. Corbyn: I understand that we have to concentrate our minds on the process of the Tory party reinventing itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the aim of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which he supported, was to leave appellate asylum seekers in destitution? Many of them were supported by churches and voluntary organisations. Only the intervention of the High Court ensured that the National Assistance Act 1948 meant that asylum seekers were at least fed. The Conservatives wanted to leave them starving on the streets.
  Sir Norman Fowler: My point is the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is probably more opposed to the Government's policy than to ours. It is pretty close either way. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), never lets an opportunity go by without saying that the Conservative Government were not sufficiently tough on the issue. It is ridiculous to say that the Labour party said that in opposition.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—the No. 2 in the Opposition home affairs team in 1992—was even more explicit when he summed up the
  52
  debate. He said that our justification for introducing the Bill was to reduce the number of applications and the backlog, but continued:
  "The Government's latest figures"—
  the Conservative Government—
  "blow away both arguments for initiating the Bill. The number of applications is not increasing but declining dramatically. The backlog of applications, far from increasing, has been halted and is now declining steadily as a result of employing an adequate number of staff'.
  Of the debate, he said:
  "I hope that my colleagues will take Hansard and spread it far and wide, particularly among the black and ethnic communities in Britain, to show where the support for their views and for asylum seekers rests. The debate has shown the concern of the parties. This is probably the fullest that the Conservative Benches have been tonight, whereas it is probably the barest that the Opposition Benches have been."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 103.]
  Conceivably, we were right to be there, and, conceivably, we were right to argue that case.
  In 1995, the same story was being peddled, and the then shadow, and now present, Home Secretary led his party against the action being taken. Let us be frank; what we are being presented with today is a fundamental shift from what the Labour party was arguing only a few years ago. I do not dispute or mind that, although I will express my reservations later. However, this is not so much a genetically modified policy as a different plant altogether. If Labour had supported our general contention, it might have been easier to tackle this problem in the first place.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will refer in his winding-up speech to any previous period of Conservative Government. However, let us consider the position at the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. We are approaching the end of the second year of this Labour Government and, by any definition, the matter is now the responsibility of the present Government. In the 12 months of 1998, there were more than 46,000 applications for political refugee status. That represents not a reduction on previous years, but an all-time record. To that 46,000 should be added a further 12,000 dependants.
  Four weeks ago, I went to Dover to look at the work of the immigration service. I was told that in the last quarter of 1998, 2,400 people had arrived as passengers, claiming political asylum—an increase of more than 250 per cent. on the last quarter of 1997. The national figures were not as dramatic, but they also showed a big increase; 14,400 applicants in the last quarter of 1998, compared with 8,460 in the last quarter of 1997. The message is that there is no sign of the pressure reducing.
  The Government's latest estimate is that they have spent more than £500 million in the last 12 months on support, accommodation and processing applications. Even if their predictions are correct—which I wonder—they plan to spend another £900 million in the next three years. By any standards, the cost is vast.
  Mr. Allan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the increase in numbers simply reflects the fact that there are far more world trouble spots than ever before, and that the vast majority of applicants come from places such as the former Yugoslavia, where trouble has been spreading incrementally over the past few years?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not accept that point in the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it. We must accept

  53
  the fact—as stated in the White Paper—that the majority of those seeking political asylum are not entitled to it. There is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus. What percentage of asylum seekers have received refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, or have appealed successfully to remain, in the past 12 months?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will come to those figures, which are a crucial part of my argument.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) does not explain the fact that this country received more asylum seekers in 1998 than any other European Union state except Germany?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I hope to answer all three interventions, from the three different parties, by continuing with what I was saying.
  We should understand why the position is so serious. We have clear obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees that we should and must recognise, but it is also clear that the vast majority of people making applications in the 1990s have not been genuine political refugees. Many have economic motives, but the majority are not in need of protection from persecution. That is undoubtedly clear from the White Paper and all the work done by the Government and the previous Government.
  Most applicants are young men and women. Many apply from within the country rather than on entry. They are not like the Jews fleeing the Nazis. They are using the asylum system. In 1997, 36,000 initial decisions were made on asylum applications. Of the applicants, 4,000 were recognised as refugees and 3,000 were granted leave to remain because of genuine humanitarian factors; that is 7,000 out of 36,000. Of those who go to appeal, if experience is anything to go by, only a small percentage will be successful.
  The whole House must recognise the problem. We need to recognise that the political asylum system, as well as providing for genuine asylum seekers, is being abused. Too often, it is a means of illegal immigration. If we do not recognise that, we fail to understand the nature of the problem that we have to tackle.
  Criminal organisations are prepared to exploit political asylum for profit. Such organisations may deal in drugs or in people. They do not mind, provided that the people whom they transport and advise can pay. Let us be clear: they are helping not the poor and the destitute but people who will pay. They are what we are up against and what we have always been up against.
  Dr. Ladyman: If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, can he understand how frustrating my constituents will find it that, according to the reasoned amendment, Conservative Members are not prepared to support the Government's initiative to try to address the problem that he identifies, not on a point of principle, but because they have some spurious belief that there should be a public inquiry? My constituents will find that hard to understand.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that I will be able to explain to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I made it
  54
  clear at the beginning of my comments that we will not vote against the Bill. We will vote for the reasoned amendment, which is our right, but not against the main Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can also explain to his constituents that the previous Labour Opposition not only voted for reasoned amendments tabled by the Liberals but opposed Second Reading of previous immigration Bills.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party will not vote against the Bill but that it will vote for the reasoned amendment. However, the reasoned amendment declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it
  "fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country."
  The right hon. Gentleman has given a horrendous description of the huge asylum problem that the country faces today, but his Government put through three restrictive, racist Acts to deal with it. It has got worse and worse and now the right hon. Gentleman attacks a package Bill that seeks to deal with asylum and provides privileges and benefits for the ethnic minorities in this country.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The reasoned amendment sets out what we want, because that is what reasoned amendments should do. I do not believe that I have overstated the issues or used emotive language. If right hon. and hon. Members are not prepared to face the facts of the situation—as set out in the White Paper, not only by me—we have come to a peculiar pass.
  Mr. Straw: I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give the Bill a Second Reading, but the reasoned amendment, which bears his name, declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. In the unlikely event that the reasoned amendment were carried, the Bill would not receive a Second Reading.
  Sir Norman Fowler: That has been the position on every such occasion. The Home Secretary knows what reasoned amendments are, and he knows what opportunities and weapons are available to the Opposition. We face not only bogus asylum seekers, but bogus arguments.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Is it not a fact, as reflected in the reasoned amendment, that the Bill will give asylum to some 30,000 or 40,000 people already in this country, many of whom do not qualify?
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is one of the points that I seek to make. I will come to the exact numbers, about which there is some confusion.
  Mr. Peter Snape rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman used to be my pair, when we had such things, in the old days, so I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Snape: I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman did not spread that information around. There is more than

  55
  a procedural nicety at stake. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the situation is as bad as he says, it is the Conservatives who are culpable, because it is their legislation we are trying to get rid of today?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I understand the point, and it is one that the Under-Secretary makes ad infinitum. At the most recent Question Time, he said that we created the problem. However, Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They say we created the problem and then, when they consider the numbers involved, they say that every country in Europe faces pressures from asylum seekers. We need to use common sense. Every country in Europe is under great pressure on this issue. Doubtless, the crisis in Kosovo will create more genuine refugees, but it will create also a new wave of fraudulent applicants. We know that what happens is that people arrive without documents—perhaps from Albania, but they claim that they come from Kosovo. It is increasingly common for asylum applicants to arrive without documents.
  We want to examine many elements of the Bill. We will want to know more about the new welfare system to be introduced, in which Liberal Democrat Members have also shown an interest. Far from reintroducing child benefit, the Government are setting up a new and different system. However, the details are sketchy, to put it mildly. Last week, I asked the Under-Secretary about what progress had been made, but about the only definite information that I got was that the new system would come into being on 1 April 2000. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 649.]
  We will need to know a little more about what will be a fundamental change in welfare and social security payments.
  We want to know more about the measures aimed at transport operators. When I asked the Home Secretary recently about the proposals of the Freight Transport Association, he said that the association was merely a client organisation of the Conservative party. Yet everyone who knows anything about transport understands—and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) certainly understands it—that the FTA is probably the most respected independent trade organisation in the country. It has been consulted by Governments of different complexions over the years, and it is nonsense to reject its advice in that way.
  The Under-Secretary is especially aggressive in that regard, evidently believing that international transport is still conducted in the old three-tonne Bedford trucks that were so easy to check. The FTA and the Road Haulage Association have said that they want to tackle the issue of fraudulent entry, and the Government would be wise to heed their advice.
  56
  As has been pointed out by the Immigration Advisory Service, the Bill provides for no fewer than 50 order-making powers. We can imagine how the Labour party in opposition would have reacted to that.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Home Secretary intervening on my present point, or the previous one?
  Mr. Straw: The previous one. I accept that, as far as possible, we should try to reach an understanding with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, and we have sought to do so. However, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that hauliers should not face the proposed penalties?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, I am saying that the Government would be well advised to try to reach agreement with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, especially as both have stated specifically that they want to prevent the illegal use of transport by asylum seekers. I believe that the Government and the hauliers can reach agreement on the matter, and that there is no need for great dispute. However, if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary simply shout at the RHA and the FTA they will find that those organisations will shout back.
  I mentioned the Bill's 50 order-making powers. The Home Secretary criticised the 1996 legislation for being a "blank cheque Bill", and he said that it gave the Secretary of State wide and ill-defined powers to use in regulations. The same criticism can be made of this Bill.
  A crucial point about the Bill was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who spoke about the need to combat fraudulent asylum seekers. The Bill's main aim is to improve the system of control. The Government want to speed up the flow of cases and to get quicker results: in theory, that will reduce the numbers staying here.
  We hope that the measures are successful. If they are not, the words being used by the Government will be hollow and meaningless. We hope that results will come earlier than suggested by the bleak message of years, not months implied by the Home Secretary.
  Immigration control is not just about how fast applicants can be processed. It is also about deterring false applicants from coming here in the first place. It is about reducing the flow of people making applications. Under the Government, that flow has reached a record level, and everyone realises that the flow of applicants to the United Kingdom depends heavily on the message that the country is sending out.
  The Government are, with two groups, currently sending out a message that could easily be interpreted as meaning that if an applicant manages to stay here for a number of years, he will be able to stay for good. The first group of applicants are the 10,000 from before July 1993 whose cases are currently being processed. The Government say that there is no question of an amnesty for those applicants, but their policy towards those people is as near an amnesty as it is possible to imagine.

  57
  Unless those applicants have committed criminal offences with sentences of more than 12 months, or some other offences, they will be allowed indefinite leave to remain. There will be no check on whether they are genuine refugees; time waiting is the only criterion. We may expect that the majority of those 10,000 applicants will remain, irrespective of whether or not they are genuine. There is, I think, no dispute about that.
  There is a further group of 20,000 applicants—although the number may be exaggerated—who arrived between July 1993 and the beginning of 1996. The criteria are also being changed and the test reduced, as outlined in the White Paper. The Minister of State says—what else?—that indefinite leave to remain is a policy pursued not only by the Government. He says that the Conservative Government followed it too, and did so in secret. Our policy was a secret only if one believes that what is said on Second Reading of a Bill is secret. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said on the Floor of the House:
  "Let me explain carefully this absolutely critical point. Although in recent years we have granted full asylum in only a relatively small number of cases, we have felt obliged, because of the delays, to grant exceptional leave to remain in others. The practice has been to grant such leave in cases where the applicants do not qualify for asylum but where it has been judged that, in all the circumstances—including their circumstances through the years while they have waited for a decision—it would be unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce their return to their country of origin. In recent years, as many as 60 per cent. of those who applied for asylum have had that application refused, but have then been granted exceptional leave to remain instead."
  My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely open about the position. Crucially, he went on:
  "That is not acceptable and it encourages people to make groundless claims because that will delay the process for so long—or the decisions will be delayed by the inadequacies of the system—to such an extent that they will not eventually be required to leave. I want to reduce that number significantly."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 27.]
  Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way again.
  There was, therefore, a basic reason why we acted as we did, but there is a danger of the Government's policy being interpreted as returning to that kind of policy. The message that we are sending out is that delay can help. The message we should send—not only to the 10,000, but, more crucially, to future applicants—is that such virtual amnesties will not be given on the ground of waiting time. Our responsibility is to genuine refugees.
  Even more fundamentally, we must consider other issues affecting illegal immigration and political asylum. The White Paper that goes along with the Bill offers a departmental review. It concentrates on the system, and it is confined by Government policy. That is why I have suggested that we should have an independent review that would not be bound by the confines of Home Office policy and that could go into the many areas not covered by the Bill. A review could give the public an independent assessment of the scale of the problem and the necessary action.
  The Government argue that such a review is unnecessary and such information irrelevant—indeed, the Home Secretary has just argued that point—yet in a
  58
  debate on 11 December 1995, no less a person than the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made precisely the opposite argument. He said:
  "We need much better evidence about the scale of the problem, and why enforcement is so poor in so many areas. We need to know whether the proposed offences aimed at racketeering will be effective. We also need an examination of other measures that might be taken".—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 716.]
  The right hon. Gentleman advocated the setting up of a Special Standing Committee. I understand the case for such a Committee and I am sure that it would be useful, but let us be frank: a Special Standing Committee is not an inquiry. The Special Standing Committee that is to be set up will have four sittings; it will take evidence from various groups and individuals, but it will have neither the time nor the backing to dig into the subject as it should.
  The sort of inquiry I have in mind is not a 12-man team or anything of that sort, but one of the type that was once set up by a Labour Government—albeit by Roy Jenkins, whose name might not help my case with Labour Members. That was the Mountbatten inquiry into prison security, which worked with two assessors and produced its report quickly. It did not delay action, but produced a report that did much to settle the prison security issue for decades to follow. If there was a case to go outside the Home Office on that issue, it is doubly strong on the issue of illegal immigration and the abuse of political asylum.
  I should like to suggest four areas in which an independent inquiry would substantially have helped policy and might help in future. First, an inquiry should look at the strength and the management of the immigration service. The number of people its staff deal with has increased and increased again. The more effective the service is in dealing with illegal immigration, the more we save on the welfare bill. It is a crucial subject that would benefit from an independent, rather than a departmental, review.
  Secondly, an inquiry should examine more strenuously the scale of the problem. There are disputes about the cost of political asylum and about the numbers involved.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, I shall not give way again. In the White Paper, the Government refer to 20,000 waiting political asylum applicants between 1993 and the beginning of 1996, but we learn from an answer to a parliamentary question that I received last week that that estimate is likely to be reduced. There are a whole range of similar issues, such as the number of people who arrive without documents, on which the Home Office says there are no figures.
  Thirdly, the inquiry should look at the number of asylum seekers who manage to disappear into this country, even though their application has failed—presumably, no one would defend such actions. The Government estimate that there are 20,000 asylum absconders, but an estimate by the former secretary of the Law Society's immigration sub-committee puts the figure at double that number, and the immigration service union reckons it is treble that number. The public are entitled not only to have the most accurate estimate—it will necessarily be an estimate—but, above all, to know why so many are able to disappear in that way and what action can be taken to prevent it.

  59
  Fourthly, the inquiry should make some estimate of why so many false applicants have come to Britain—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. What acts as the attraction—is it welfare payments, housing, the delay in the system, or some other factor? We hear about different adjusted tables that can be produced to play down the problem, but why, over the past four or five years, does France appear to have had only half the number of applicants that we have had?
  We shall press our amendment to a vote tonight, because we believe that the Government have lost an opportunity to examine other measures that could be taken. An independent inquiry would have helped and could still help and we regret the Government's failure to establish one.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No. I said that I would not give way again.
  The message that this country should be sending out is that, although we shall give entry to genuine refugees, we shall not allow false claimants to stay here. We shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but we shall work to make it more effective in the way that Labour, when it was in opposition, should have worked with us. I warn the Government that, from now on, the public will not want ministerial excuses or attempts to transfer the blame. The issue is now the Labour Government's responsibility, and the public want effective action.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In the nearly 29 years I have served in the House, I suppose that I have dealt with more constituency immigration cases than any other hon. Member. As a result, I have accumulated a great deal of experience both in this area and of Home Secretaries. There have been 12 Home Secretaries during my time in the House, and my right hon. Friend—I am sorry to say this in his absence—is by far the best Home Secretary of either political party with whom I have had dealings on immigration cases.
  That is partly because of my right hon. Friend's experience as Member of Parliament for Blackburn—he understands the issues with great clarity—and partly because he is simultaneously firm and fair. He understands the need for a liberal race relations/community relations policy that is imposed firmly for the benefit of all those involved. A token of the benefits conferred by my right hon. Friend was his abolition, within a few weeks of taking office, of the primary purpose rule—probably the most odious restriction on the union of spouses—which was imposed by William Whitelaw, of all people, when he became Home Secretary in 1979.
  I support the Bill and welcome it wholeheartedly because it is a package measure. It confers proper benefits on members of the ethnic minority communities, one of
  60
  the most important of which is the restoration of the appeals mechanism for people whose visitors visa applications are rejected. I see many cases of that kind in my constituency and sometimes the rulings seem extremely unreasonable. I am gratified that my right hon. Friend has confirmed, in response to my intervention, that there will be a fast-track system for those who wish to attend weddings and funerals in this country but who are refused visitors visas. There is no point in obtaining a visa if the wedding or funeral has already taken place.
  I turn to another aspect of the proposals regarding visitors. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified in his winding-up speech the Government's approach in clauses 7 and 8 to the provision of bonds and security. Like other hon. Members' constituents, mine tell me, "I want my mother or my aunt to come to this country and I am willing to offer financial security that I will forfeit if she does not leave." That is fair enough. The problem is that many people do not have the financial means to offer such bonds and security. Many of my constituents from the ethnic minority communities are on low incomes, and I would not like to think that they will have fewer opportunities to bring in relatives for a visit than those on higher incomes.
  I welcome with immense satisfaction the provisions for the registration of advisers and solicitors. Any hon. Member who deals with immigration cases knows that there are organisations—and, sadly, solicitors—who batten on the immigrant community when dealing with immigration law. Like most people, members of the immigrant community have little understanding of the ins and outs of immigration law. Increasingly, constituents come to me with correspondence from these organisations, which have not only handled their cases with immense incompetence but have taken huge amounts of money from them. I deal with a number of such cases and shall name three organisations with which my constituents become embroiled.
  The first is the Welfare Centre, run by Mr. Abdullah Azad. It takes money from my constituents but often sends their cases to me when he has either botched them or cannot deal with them. Another, in Manchester, is called Ekitok and Co., whose letterhead reads "Immigration, Nationality and Law Consultants". The name of Carole Ekitok LL. B. also appears. My constituents go there although they often do not need to do so; their cases are often botched; and their chances are ruined because of the incompetence and grasping nature of these firms.
  Thirdly, there is a firm of solicitors in Manchester called Thornhill, which I understand has now changed its name to Thornhill Ince. It gets involved in cases which have no need of a solicitor because they relate solely to immigration applications. I have now got to the point where constituents tell me that such people have not only failed with their cases but damaged them; I say that I will take their cases—first, because I want to and secondly, because it is my duty to do so—but they must have nothing more to do with those organisations.
  I want to end the culture in which people go to these organisations in the first place. It is outrageous that firms of solicitors should not only take on immigration cases which have nothing to do with the legal process but charge money for them. An asylum applicant—I am not

  61
  commenting on whether it was a meritorious case—told me that a solicitor was charging her £200 an hour for an asylum application.
  A woman came to see me the weekend before last because her husband had been deported a couple of days before. I asked her to send me a letter about her case, and I shall read an extract from it. She wrote:
  "The day after marriage our agent Mr. Shaikh who is a friend of my uncle advised us give the case of my husband to leave to remain in the United Kingdom for an indefinite period on marriage status because at this moment he … has visitor visa, Mr. Shaikh will apply through … John Fuller Immigration specialist in London".
  They were asked to pay a £3,000 cash fee. The letter continues:
  "We paid £3,000 cash to Mr. Shaikh and John Fuller for applying to the home office and get visa for my husband Tariq Wasim to leave to remain in the United Kingdom permanently. John Fuller's office was in London, every time … he visited Manchester to see us he always told us he has submitted our case to home office and waiting for their decision".
  They were told not to worry as he was corresponding with the Home Office. The letter goes on to say:
  "it cost more time so he demanded more money and I paid £300 to £500 each time … I have paid them the total amount of £9,000 up till now but all in vain."
  That letter is from a woman who did not know how to approach the matter and who was milked for money by a solicitor who in the end went bankrupt and whose cheque bounced.
  I want not only to hear that the registration of such phoney, leech-like advisers will be enforced with severe penalties, but to know—it is not clear in the Bill—how it will be enforced for solicitors, too. Some solicitors are as bad as these advisers. It breaks my heart to see constituents, whatever the merits of their cases, being dealt with by these appalling leeches. I welcome this part of the Bill more than I can say.
  I do not know the statistics—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) probably does not, either—but one of the problems is that even when advisers do not see the validity of a case, they recommend that an asylum application be made. That is part of the asylum problem with which the Bill has to deal. These advisers create an asylum racket by advising people who do not know any better and who would never act in such a way on their own initiative. They are told that another way for them to stay will be found.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out in response to an intervention, if the asylum racket fails, the applicants are advised to go for judicial review. This has created a process whereby decent, innocent people go through a serious of phoney stages in an attempt to remain in this country. These people would never do such a thing on their own were they not advised to do so by these awful people.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an excellent record on genuine asylum cases. I have here a letter from a constituent from Sierra Leone who says that he wants to bless my right hon. Friend because his genuine asylum case has resulted in indefinite leave to remain. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to Algeria; my right hon. Friend has a good record on Algerian cases, too.
  One of the things that saddens me most about the asylum racket fostered by advisers is that the genuine and deserving cases are considered alongside the bogus cases,
  62
  to the detriment of the genuine ones. I welcome the measures to deal with bogus cases, because I want the genuine cases to win. I have many genuine cases, as my right hon. Friend will know because I bombard him with correspondence about them.
  I should like clarification on one or two points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about the measures to deal with sham marriages. They are fair, because although the women involved are often totally sincere, the men are simply using them as a way to stay in this country. My right hon. Friend referred to the notes that accompany the Bill. Paragraph 337 states that certain proposals with regard to sham marriages
  "do not extend to the procedures for marriages celebrated in the Church of England and the Church in Wales. However, they do apply to all other religious marriages solemnised after civil preliminaries."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will look at that again. There is an implication—not intentional, I know—that marriages that take place within the Church of England and the Church in Wales are not going to be bogus but that marriages within the many other religions that we now have in this country might be.
  I also warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister that although we are to have a one-stop appeal, the provisions in clauses 47 and 51 with regard to appeals under the Human Rights Act 1998 on asylum grounds might well institutionalise such appeals. Unless we deal with the advisers who are corrupting applicants, they will advise people to go for appeal on asylum and human rights grounds, too. That will be exploited and distorted, whereas my colleagues' intentions are wholly worthy.
  The Bill is a very important package. It is probably the most important immigration legislation to come before the House since 1971. The Immigration Act 1971 was based on racism and restriction; this is based on inclusivity, coupled with a determination to deal with bogus cases. My constituents from the ethnic minorities welcome it, and so do I.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: It would be easy to characterise the Government as having sold out on the principles that they espoused in opposition, in favour of simply carrying on the Conservative agenda. Indeed, the record of the Labour party's reaction to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, set against the Bill, would provide strong support for such an attack. However, not only would it be a dull and predictable line of attack to compare what the Minister said then and what he says now, but such a simple line would not do justice to the complexity of the proposals.
  The country was badly let down by the previous Conservative Government in respect of asylum and immigration, as in so many other respects. They continually trotted out the rhetoric of being tough on immigration in a way that many of us felt verged on playing the race card, and all the time they were presiding over a system that was falling deeper and deeper into chaos, with increasing backlogs.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us today that the Government are firmly committed to improving the immigration and nationality directorate, especially with

  63
  regard to targets for processing paperwork. A special concern of mine recently has been the case of students who want to renew their student visas. Their passports are held for months by the IND, preventing them from travelling for genuine family events. Such treatment brings discredit to the IND.
  We believe that the Conservatives have little of value to add to the debate, unless and until they have the good grace to apologise for their mismanagement and their failure to act when they were in power. We do not intend to support their amendment tonight.
  The Liberal Democrats will oppose the Government on the basis of our long held principles and values, which give us an opposition platform that will be familiar to those many Labour Members who share our values. I hope that many of the Labour Members who have expressed an interest in the matter will be active in Committee making the excellent contributions of which I know they are capable, having encountered them in forums outside the hothouse of this place.
  This is a Jekyll and Hyde Bill. Dr. Jekyll has introduced some changes to the asylum and immigration system that are sensible and long overdue. We have no hesitation in supporting the restoration of the right of visitors to appeal a refusal of their visa, although we have some questions about how that will work and what it will cost. We welcome the measures that aim to bring the immigration system up to date and to streamline the controls.
  I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about immigration advisers. The regulation of immigration advisers is long overdue and will be to the public good. There are some excellent organisations such as the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre. In Sheffield, we have the Law Centre. Like the right hon. Member for Gorton, I am concerned about how we regulate the solicitors. My experience of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has not always been a happy one when I have taken up cases on behalf of constituents. I shall seek reassurance that the Law Society will take the firm action that we expect against unscrupulous legally qualified solicitors.
  The Bill contains some moves in the right direction regarding the treatment of detainees, but they do not go far enough.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Hyde has added to the Bill substantial elements that we believe derive from the ethos of the previous Government and which are unacceptable to me and my colleagues. The debate about asylum seekers has plumbed appalling depths in recent times. Asylum seekers have been used as scapegoats, and the invective launched against them sometimes verges on coded racism. Public attacks on scrounging, criminal asylum seekers will feed the prejudices of some who read the attacks as being on an ethnic group as a whole, be they Roma people or people from one African country or another.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the attitude of the Evening Standard, which seems to have a schizophrenic approach towards asylum seekers and refugees? It published a brilliant article by Max Hastings about Jewish asylum seekers, many of whom were turned
  64
  back by Britain in the 1930s, yet it routinely bashes any asylum seeker who arrives in London and generates appalling racism against people who are victims of horrific situations in other countries.
  Mr. Allan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much of the reporting across the entire spectrum of the media has sometimes been extremely confused and come close to being unacceptable in our modern society. We need a healthy and open debate, which I hope will not degenerate into such attacks. I hope that the media will pay attention to the statement issued by the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality, which calls on the media not to make such unhelpful attacks when reporting on the Bill.
  Race relations and immigration are not the same issues, but the linkages are real in public attitudes about our multicultural, multi-ethnic society. We must immediately explode the myth that race relations are somehow improved by talking tough on immigration. We need sensible and fair immigration controls. Tight immigration controls have existed for many years, and no one is talking about radically loosening them. We are discussing changes at the edges, affecting relatively small numbers of people.
  The public rhetoric of tough talking often gives the impression that the debate is about an open immigration policy and the prospect of fighting off floods of immigrants who would swamp the country. Such a debate does not help race relations. It causes massive harm to the lives of many people from immigrant communities who properly live in Britain.
  Stereotypes about immigrants are created and reinforced, giving rise to a negative impression of all immigrants and their families in this country. In such a climate, it is important that public leaders, especially those in Government, speak up and make clear the benefits that recent immigrants have brought and will continue to bring to Britain.
  I shall set out the foundations of a liberal response to the issue. First, I do not say, nor have I ever said, that all those claiming asylum should have their claims granted. Some people clearly do set out to abuse the system, to avoid legitimate immigration controls. Some are simply misguided or ill advised in making their claims. Others have strong cases that are worth testing, but their cases will not prove strong enough for them to be granted asylum.
  Secondly, all people should be treated with dignity and respect. Whether people have come to the United Kingdom fleeing poverty or persecution, they can still be treated with dignity. Those fleeing poverty alone will properly be refused asylum, but that is no excuse for treating them poorly during the process.
  We must examine the roots of the modern international agreements on asylum. We must remember the failure to accept the genuine fears of many Jews who tried to find their way to safety in the 1930s. Bosnia and Kosovo show us that similar situations can occur very close to home in the 1990s. The majority of those who have come to Britain and been granted asylum are from recognised trouble spots. Home Office figures show that at the top of the league for applications for 1998 were people from the former Yugoslavia and Somalia.

  65
  A key issue for us is whether a Government should use the language of deterrence. Britain should not be in the game of seeking to prevent asylum seekers from coming here. There is a fine line between deterring false claimants and preventing genuine ones from arriving. If someone wishes to take up his rights under international conventions, we should not seek to prevent him from doing so. We should ensure that his claim is processed speedily and fairly.
  We believe that many of the measures in the Bill will have a serious deterrent or preventive effect that may bring the UK into contravention of its international obligations.
  Some of the debate has centred on the notion that this country is a soft touch and is deliberately sought out by asylum seekers who should be applying elsewhere. Again, the figures do not bear that out. The UK was ninth of the 13 European countries in the rate of asylum seekers per 100,000 population in 1998. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are dealing with far more applications, proportionately.
  The proper way of sorting out who should be claiming where is by improving international agreements, especially those with our European neighbours, not by a simplistic attempt to make life tough for asylum seekers in the UK. Life is already tough for many asylum seekers. Living on benefit in urban Britain, far from their own home, often without their family, and knowing that violence continues to plague their homeland is not an especially joyful existence.
  The ethos of the Bill is that because some people abuse the system, it should be made tough for everyone. It is like a teacher giving the entire class detention because someone who cannot be identified stole the chalk. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the proposals for the support of asylum seekers in the future.
  A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the voucher system that has operated for in-country applicants and is to be implemented in a new way for all applicants. It is a hugely inefficient system which is costly in cash terms and in terms of human dignity. Can the Minister tell us whether the new system will cost more or less to administer per person per week than the existing benefits system?
  There is a logic in the Home Office holding the budget for the support of asylum seekers. It is also important that we remove the burden from local authorities. If we can make it clear that there will be separate and specific funding, we can be clear to people in the host community that they are not losing out because of the need to support asylum seekers.
  Once the budget and the funding responsibility have been identified, however, the cheapest and best way to deliver support is via the benefit system. If we have established levels of income support and housing benefit as the basic means of supporting citizens in the United Kingdom, there is no logic in saying that asylum seekers need a different level or type of support. It would be straightforward to have the Home Office directly reimburse the Benefits Agency and local authorities for the full cost of support that they provide through the benefit system.
  The Government's argument for not taking that approach is that the benefits system acts as a great incentive for people coming to claim asylum. That
  66
  overstates the delights of life on benefit, as politicians often do, by contrast with the experience of many people who survive on that basic level of support.
  The Government's argument becomes far weaker when considered in conjunction with their overall proposals. Much of the rest of the Bill and of other administrative changes aims to provide a far more rapid system where claims are dealt with in a few months rather than years, as at present. If that is to be the position, the incentive argument falls apart. There may be some incentive effect in spending several years here with support from the benefits system, but if the Government achieve their targets that incentive will surely disappear.
  Ms Abbott: The hon. Gentleman was not in this place during the previous Parliament, but when we debated withdrawing benefits from certain categories of asylum seekers, the then shadow Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary—said that the draw was not the benefits themselves but the time that it took to resolve claims. Some of my hon. Friends would argue, "What has changed since we opposed these issues in principle when the previous Government were in office?"
  Mr. Allan: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is consistent in that view. I am aware that during the previous Parliament my colleagues argued on a similar basis, saying that the issue was the time taken to come to a decision. The introduction of a new support system suggests, to me, a tremendous lack of confidence on the Government's part that they will achieve their targets for a faster system. I would prefer to leave a system in place that gave them an added incentive to achieve their other targets for faster processing than to provide them with a cop out as they withdraw any support from more and more categories of people during various stages of the process.
  The new system will create a new class of socially excluded people. It is a bitter irony that we have a Government who pride themselves on their social exclusion unit yet at the same time intend to create a category of people who will be the most excluded since the days of the workhouse. How much more excluded can one be than to be forced into designated accommodation and then made to use vouchers to purchase goods in certain shops only?
  Detention is a key issue for us as liberal politicians. The deprivation of an individual's liberty by the state is sometimes necessary in a liberal society. However, it should never be treated lightly and it should always be within a framework of accountability, with rights to challenge that deprivation of liberty. We believe that the detention of asylum seekers and others under immigration controls generally has been and is being used inappropriately.
  The Government have responded with an automatic bail hearing, which is welcome. However, the proposal set out in the Bill leaves much to be desired. In particular, there is no guarantee of legal representation at the hearings. We believe that there could be a mechanism for ensuring that, and that providing such representation would save time and money in the long run. The better the representation at an early stage, the less likely we are to run through a series of further hearings.
  There is also no presumption in favour of release, a point which was taken up earlier. The presumption in a bail hearing in general courts is that the court should be

  67
  in favour of release, with the officers involved required to demonstrate why the individual should be held. We believe that that presumption should similarly apply in detention cases where the immigration service is required to demonstrate its reasons for detention, rather than the detainee having to try to work his or her way round whatever the guidelines are to try to secure release.
  As proposed, we believe that the bail hearings risk becoming a judicial rubber-stamping exercise for the decisions already taken by immigration officers. Concerns along similar lines have been expressed by many organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Law Society and the Refugee Council. We share the concerns that those organisations are raising about whether the new, automatic right to bail will make any significant difference to the situation of detainees.
  Two other key areas remain unresolved by the Bill. First, we would wish to see special provision made for the victims of torture to ensure that they have appropriate medical examinations and treatment and are dealt with patiently and sensitively. We believe that some of the time control requirements for getting all the information in will affect especially those who are most traumatised, who may find it very difficult to present information quickly. However, we are told that if they do not present the relevant information at the first stage, they will not be able to use it later.
  We believe that similar provision needs to be made for the many female victims of sexual violence, which is sadly all too common now in war and conditions of oppression. Again, there is a need for sensitivity and patience to enable those concerned to get their stories together.
  Secondly, we are concerned that the Government have failed to take this opportunity to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which concerns the employment of people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. The Government are merely proposing a new code of conduct. That is in direct contravention of Labour party policy before the Labour party took power, which made explicit its wish to repeal section 8. Work by the Commission for Racial Equality has shown that the section has not had the effect it was sold as having: stopping organised exploitation of overseas workers. In fact, no prosecutions have taken place since it was introduced and its only impact has been to deter employers from employing people from some minority groups, often because they misunderstand the law. It would be perfectly simple to repeal section 8, yet the Government have inexplicably failed to do so.
  We would have been happy if Dr. Jekyll had written the entire Bill and it needed only to be tidied up. We would then have been able to support it at this stage, as we agree with the Government that reform of the system is needed urgently. However, the Government have drunk deep of the potion of tough talking and Mr. Hyde's hand figures prominently in so many elements of the Bill. That being so, we will oppose it and ask the Government to return to the drawing board with all possible haste.
  It is particularly worrying that the Bill contains 50 order-making powers, so that there is a risk that we will be shadow boxing during its passage without a clear
  68
  idea of its effects. The Bill delivers no cheques to asylum seekers but it certainly gives a blank cheque to the Home Secretary. We need to know who is drafting the secondary legislation—Dr. Jekyll or his less attractive alter ego—if we are to be able fully to assess the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred to that during the speech of the Home Secretary. I hope that whatever the Minister says in response to my contribution, he will be able to give a clear commitment to produce at least draft versions of the many orders in plenty of time for us to consider them in Committee, along with the rest of the Bill.
  My colleagues and I will be registering our opposition to the Bill this evening to reflect our view on so many elements of it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will be seeking to catch the eye of the Chair when he returns from the Home Office to make some additional points. We will—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is a rapid worker and I see that he is already back in his place. We will have a lively debate for the rest of today and during further consideration of the Bill.
  The Commission for Racial Equality and the Refugee Council have sensibly sought and received support from the main party leaders for a statement on the context in which the debate should be conducted. They state that they will conduct the debate in a spirit of trying to continue
  "to provide protection to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution."
  They add that they will not
  "cause to be published, or in any way endorse any material that incites hostility or division between people of different racial, national or religious groups."
  I believe that that sort of statement is important, and I end my contribution to the debate by reaffirming my party's commitment to holding a vigorous debate based on the facts and merits or otherwise of particular proposals, in terms of making the asylum system work. We hope and trust that our proceedings on the Bill in this place will be conducted in that spirit. We hope also that leading political figures from all sides will have the courage to use every opportunity to tell people of their support for this country's proud tradition of providing protection for those who have a well founded fear of persecution.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke ably and coherently, but he rather over-used the Jekyll and Hyde analogy. We are all aware of that pair of characters when it comes to the Liberal party. It will be interesting to see how widely the hon. Gentleman's speech is circulated by his fellow Liberals in constituencies such as mine in the west midlands. It will also be interesting to see how widely the Liberal amendment, which Madam Speaker has not selected, is circulated. It seems from that amendment that there is no need for any real control of immigration into the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his speech was entirely negative about the Government's proposals.
  I welcome, first, the provision for an appeal procedure for applications for visitors' visas. For Labour Members—and, I suspect, for Conservative Members—one of the most distressing, as well as annoying, aspects

  69
  of immigration cases that we deal with is that people with a perfectly reasonable record in respect of visiting the United Kingdom are subsequently refused entry for no apparent reason. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, not only the families of people who have applied to come here, but the applicants themselves, are refused.
  Often, people who entered the United Kingdom and left within the period specified in their visas have had subsequent applications to come to this country refused arbitrarily, and without any apparent reason being given by the entry clearance officer, other than the blanket reason that he is not satisfied that the visit is for the purpose that the applicant claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary will ensure that that appeal procedure is quick enough to allow genuine applicants to enter this country for the sort of family circumstances that have been outlined by Labour Members.
  This is a complex Bill covering a wide area. In the short time available to me, I want to talk about three parts of the Bill. Part IV deals with immigration and asylum appeals. I have not been a Member of the House for as long as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I am not that far behind him. I can remember one applicant for political asylum from my constituency throughout the 1980s. I am currently dealing with about 40 such applications. Although I might offend some of my hon. Friends by saying this, I cannot believe that all those applications are genuine or that the world has become 40 times more dangerous in the late 1990s than it was in the 1980s.
  Mr. Kaufman: I simply want my hon. Friend to accept my congratulations on the 25th anniversary of his election to Parliament, which is next Sunday.
  Mr. Snape: That is very kind. This is one of the few occasions when I have given way in the House without regretting it. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
  Returning to a more serious and important matter, all too often it appears to me—and, I suspect, to some of my hon. Friends, in their hearts—that the political asylum application is regarded, in cricketing parlance, as the long stop when all else has failed. I am sorry that I have used cricketing parlance, because I cannot remember who stands behind the long stop.
  Mr. Corbyn: The boundary.
  Mr. Snape: No, I am afraid that there is someone before the boundary.
  Another fallback position is used all too often—the judicial review. Many of the cases with which I am dealing at present—hon. Members on both sides of the House must also deal with such cases—are based on largely spurious grounds for political asylum and equally spurious grounds for judicial review. I do not blame the applicants themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, I do not think that many of them would go down that particular road if they were not so advised. He mentioned certain organisations in the United Kingdom that have established a well deserved reputation for avarice and incompetence in respect of dealing with these human problems.
  70
  I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend mention the welfare centre in Manchester, because one of my constituents from West Bromwich ended up there. I am glad that, by and large, such organisations do not flourish in Birmingham and the west midlands area, so that those who go to the less reputable organisations use places such as the welfare centre. My constituent entered the country illegally, in the back of a lorry, in December 1994; was interviewed in May 1995; was informed of his liability to detention and summary removal; made an application for political asylum subsequently, which was refused; married in November 1995; applied for judicial review in October 1997; and disappeared from my constituency books shortly after that.
  I am not sure what was the outcome of that case, but in June 1997, I received a letter from the welfare centre in Manchester, signed by Mr. Azad, the director. The letter says that a member of my constituent's family forwarded a copy of a letter from the new immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 9 June 1997. Mr. Azad said that he was both surprised and disappointed, because he had been receiving that kind of letter from the outgoing Tory Administration, who had been increasingly xenophobic during the past few years, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary.
  I do not know how much my constituent was charged for that letter, but I would not describe its value as being particularly great. However, I understand that, until comparatively recently, that organisation was dealing—if that is the right term—with many immigration judicial review cases, as well as political asylum cases, on behalf of constituents all over the country.
  It is not only the amateurs about whom I complain and whose activities I hope the Bill will do a great deal to curb. About 76 firms of solicitors are currently under investigation by the Legal Aid Board because of the way in which they handle, mishandle or bungle—hon. Members can describe it any way they like—these cases. Under the heading
  "OSS ignores legal aid asylum scam revelations",
  Diane Taylor wrote in the 8 February 1999 edition of The Lawyer, the legal profession's own magazine:
  "The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors failed to pass on a report to the Legal Aid Board outlining a legal aid scam that cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.
  Former Law Society immigration law sub-committee secretary Richard Dunstan gave the report to the OSS last October.
  The report claims firms approached refugees at the offices of the Government's Asylum Screening Unit in London.
  They used interpreters to get asylum seekers to sign Green Form billing forms—often in the ASU's toilets.
  The report outlines how solicitors offered shoddy legal advice and milked the system."
  That is not my phrase; it was used in the lawyers' own magazine.
  The report continues:
  "The average claim for asylum seeker legal advice was up to £1,100, with one law firm alone netting more than £500,000 in legal aid money last year."
  Ms Abbott: We can all tell stories of solicitors and racketeers and abuse, but my hon. Friend will, I hope, agree that abuse and poor advice from lawyers and

  71
  advisers, of which I am very critical, should not be allowed to affect the Government meeting our obligations to refugees in respect of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We must not let these often amusing tales of abuse detract from our work.
  Mr. Snape: I have no intention of allowing those not-so-amusing tales to prevent this country from, quite rightly, welcoming genuine refugees, from whom we have benefited enormously over the years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the problem with those scams is that genuine refugees are all too often turned away because Ministers, advisers and the Home Office generally are bogged down in the sort of cases that I have outlined.
  Although I confess that The Lawyer is not habitual reading in the Snape household, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that Richard Dunstan, the former Law Society immigration law sub-committee secretary, said:
  "The great majority of those now operating in the asylum field, both lawyers and non-lawyers, are either insufficiently competent, dishonest, or both."
  That is a shattering indictment of certain shady members of the legal profession and an indication of how much we need the Bill if we are to clear up this situation.
  When I read the Tory amendment, I could not believe the nerve of the modern-day Conservative party. Someone described the Tory party as an organised hypocrisy; I have forgotten who it was, but it was an accurate description. [Interruption.] It was Disraeli; I knew that my hon. Friends would come to my rescue. That description is accurate in terms of the speech that we heard from the Tory Front-Bench spokesman and the so-called reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Tory party is a disorganised hypocrisy.
  Mr. Snape: Yes, it is a disorganised hypocrisy in this case.
  The amendment declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because
  "the Bill fails to create a situation whereby only genuine asylum applicants will be given permission to settle in this country."
  Many of the applicants being dealt with entered the country under the three pieces of asylum legislation that the Conservatives introduced in just over a decade. [Interruption.] Conservative Members say that they were bogus applications.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman voted against the two previous asylum Bills.
  Mr. Snape: Those three Acts were opposed, because it was clear that they would not work. The situation that we are in today shows better than anything else that they do not work. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) wants to defend the Conservative legislation, he should catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, instead of bawling from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a fool of himself, he is better doing it on his feet rather than on the other bit of his anatomy.
  72
  I did not congratulate the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), when he got this job: I commiserated with him. I said that he had the worst job in government.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: No, I have only 60 seconds to go.
  I still think that my hon. Friend has the worst job in government: it has very few rewards. He does his job extremely well, and so does the Home Secretary. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the Bill goes a long way towards alleviating the human misery felt by many people who are being unfairly kept out of this country, while at the same time tackling the massive corruption—£35 million this year and £50 million next year—through green form fiddles by members of the legal profession. If my hon. Friend can tackle both those problems, he will have earned the admiration and the friendship of both sides of the House.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: First, I decare an interest as a solicitor and as the founder and first chairman of trustees of the Immigration Advisory Service, which, as the House may know, was set up some five years ago to provide free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. The IAS—which some hon. Members use for their case work and for advice—has eight offices scattered around the United Kingdom, about 100 staff, and each year sees more than 30,000 people with problems.
  Having declared that interest, and thanking the Minister for the kind words he has said about the IAS in the past, may I also tell the House that the constituency of Woking, which I now represent, has a large, settled, ethnic population who contribute greatly to the community. They are mainly from a Pakistani background. Previously, I represented the constituency of Croydon, North-West, which also had a large, settled ethnic community.
  The Bill has some good provisions, but I join the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in welcoming especially the restoration of the appeal right for those who are refused entry clearance as visitors, although it is restricted to those visiting family members. All hon. Members know this problem only too well. Someone may come to our constituency to attend a wedding, a funeral or another important family function. There is often documentary evidence in support of the visit, but the visitor, whom we know to be genuine, is refused entrance and has no right of appeal. I am very pleased that this right of appeal has been introduced.
  I am concerned that there is no provision in the Bill for defining what is meant by "family visitor". I hope that the Minister will give attention to that point, because it is capable of a variety of definitions and requires consideration.
  I think that it is wrong that a refused visitor will have to pay a fee towards the cost of the appeal. We must look into this matter carefully. It is all very well to say that such people will have the fee back if they are successful on appeal, but I advise the Minister to consider this provision carefully. The amount of the fee is not

  73
  mentioned in the Bill. Can the Minister tell us what the fee is? Does he agree that, if the fee is too high, it may discriminate against the poorer appellant, who, even though he has a good case, may not be able to afford the appeal fee? There is a danger that there will be justice for the rich, but no justice for the poor, unless the Minister handles that issue with great sensitivity.
  I also extend a more than qualified welcome to clause 7, which introduces the principle of giving financial security for entry clearance or extension of leave, in the form either of a deposit or of a guarantee. I have no quarrel with the security being in the form of a guarantee. However, it is clear from the Bill that the security could be the deposit of a sum of money. Again, I ask the Minister how much. Will it be on a sliding scale depending on the means of the parties? Does the Minister accept that a high cash deposit could discriminate against a poor person who may otherwise have an excellent claim, and work in favour of a rich person, whose claim may otherwise lack merit?
  Does the Minister agree that the issue of the deposit must be approached with great sensitivity? Otherwise, he will face two charges: first, that the measure directly damages and discriminates against the poorly off; and secondly, that the move provides a relatively cheap way for the rich but dishonest to circumvent and break the rules, and buy their way into the country.
  I welcome most warmly the regulation of immigration advisers, which I have called for on many occasions. We all know of the many unscrupulous advisers who have taken money from our constituents, but have done absolutely nothing for them or have given them rotten advice. I would have been happier had the proposals covered the legal profession. There are people in the legal profession—no one whom I know, of course—whose approach to these matters has been pretty bad. There would be no harm in extending the provisions to them. We must carefully consider the level of fees we charge those who are to be regulated to ensure that it is not so high as to discourage good people who do not have much money.
  I take it that the Minister can confirm that Members of Parliament will have no problems giving advice in their constituency surgeries on a Friday or Saturday on matters connected with immigration law, and are exempt from any offences.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Provided that they do not do it for reward.
  Mr. Malins: I assumed that was the case, and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming it.
  Last week, I spent some time at Heathrow airport talking to British Airways about the problems that it faces as a carrier. I knew a little about those problems, but I learned a bit more at Heathrow. Under the Bill, the Government seek powers to require information about passengers carried or expected to be carried on an arriving or departing flight. The type of information required is not set out in the Bill, but will be specified by order. That is quite a good idea in principle, but I believe that the immigration service should use the power sparingly to avoid added inconvenience to passengers and airlines, and, for the latter in particular, increased costs.
  74
  Will the Minister clarify the data that will be required from carriers, and the expected frequency of data requests? Will he also assure us that requests for data will not result in airlines being accused of discriminatory conduct? Can he tell us that carriers will not be required to collect extra data from that held at present?
  I should like also to deal with the difficult subject of fraudulent documents. Carriers are liable for a charge of £2,000 on each occasion an inadequately documented passenger is brought into the United Kingdom, unless the documentation's falsity is not reasonably apparent. As the Minister knows, false documentation is often associated with clever, organised criminals. This type of passport and visa forgery is done with considerable forensic skill. Many of us have seen such forgeries, and they are terribly difficult to spot.
  Forgeries are almost impossible to detect by anyone other than a very skilled immigration officer. Many people believe that the immigration service is a little too draconian in its interpretation of the procedure. Charges are sometimes raised against a carrier and maintained following an appeal, even if the falsity of documentation is not reasonably apparent, especially to a less skilled airline check-in agent.
  I also learned that airlines have a problem with outgoing passengers. When a passenger checks in at Heathrow to go out of the country and presents documentation, the only checking that can be done must be done by the person on the check-in desk, who is usually in a tremendous hurry because there is a huge queue. It is pressure, pressure, pressure. That person must check the documents, and check the passport to establish whether the face looks the same; then out the passenger goes.
  Currently, carriers face penalties in the countries in which people arrive, having left England, if documentation is false. It is a pity that such pressure is put on carriers, especially because the immigration officers who used to check people leaving Heathrow were removed in July. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the immigration service will act sensitively in future when considering documents and claims.
  The Bill requires registrars to report on sham marriages. Are they being turned into unpaid immigration officials? Is there a chance that this will deter members of the ethnic communities from marrying because they fear that it will be used against them and is culturally divisive? I am not sure I agree that such duties should be imposed on registrars: I am not sure that they should have to look as carefully at marriages as an immigration official might. I think I heard the Minister or the Home Secretary say earlier that no such duty applied to clergy in the Church of England, but, if it does apply to them, my father, a retired vicar aged 81, will no doubt have to put a series of difficult questions to all for whom he intends to read the banns in the local church.
  I am disappointed about two or three things. I think that the Government missed an opportunity to present a consolidating Bill; instead, we have a slightly unwieldy collection of provisions to be bolted on to other immigration Acts. This is a piecemeal approach, which may cause confusion. I am also worried about the fact that the Home Secretary has given sweeping powers for the making of secondary legislation, while not placing a huge

  75
  amount of restriction on the exercise of those powers. The House needs to be kept informed of all developments.
  It has been said before that the House has a duty to discuss these issues rationally and sensitively. We are dealing with human problems—with families, and with children—and we must never use emotive language that is guaranteed to inflame passions and opinions, the sort of language we sometimes see in the press. I believe that, although we have some knockabout politics, there is also a tremendous amount of good will and common sense in all parts of the House when we discuss these serious matters.
  I cannot let the occasion pass without asking the Minister to focus on the potential problem of enforcement. We may as well have this out in the open. I am thinking of two categories of person. First, there are those who have exercised all their rights of appeal under the immigration laws, who have lost, lost and lost again—end of story—but who are still in this country, and have gone to ground. I understand from a Home Office Minister that up to 50,000 such people have exhausted all their rights and gone absent without leave somewhere in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister an estimate of their number? If he has not, can he give us his best guess, and can he tell us what the Government will do about them? I know that the problem has built up over successive Governments; I was, in a way, lucky not to be here between 1992 and 1997, because it is not all my fault.
  Mr. Snape: In view of the emollient phrases that the hon. Gentleman has used, I wonder why he wants to know how many of those people there are and what we are doing about chasing them out.
  Mr. Malins: I think it is time that we did know. I think that the public ought to know how many there are, and what the Minister is going to do about them. If they are here illegally and are subject to removal or deportation, has the Minister plans to deport them or not? If he has such plans, what are they? Does he not think that it is a gigantic task to deport tens of thousands of people? Will he make a start, or not? We deserve answers to those questions.
  If the Minister is going to do nothing about those who have exhausted their rights of appeal and are still here illegally, let us be told. If the problem is too big for the Minister, let us be told. If he is prepared to get to grips with it, perhaps he will tell us exactly what he will do, and give us some numbers. I do not think that I was challenged when I said in the Home Affairs Committee, not long ago, that there were about 50,000 people in that category; but I shall hear from the Minister later. Frankly, I think that the problem is so big that, if the Army and the police dealt with it full time for six months, they would make no impact. Nevertheless, we need to know the answers.
  If it is true that 20,000 people whose asylum applications are currently going through the system have gone to ground somewhere and lost contact with the Home Office—this is a separate category—can the Minister tell us exactly how contact will be renewed, and exactly how the Government will be able to deal with
  76
  those people? Can he tell us, in all honesty, that he believes our borders are secure? I do not think that they are. The Minister knows that, while there were 4,000 asylum applications 10 years ago, there are now well over 40,000 a year. He knows that the flow of asylum seekers is becoming stronger. He also knows that, although some asylum seekers are genuine, the vast majority—as confirmed by the Home Secretary—are economic refugees. If the message is spread too extensively in foreign countries—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has used his time, and must resume his seat.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Let me reassure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that the borders of this country are secure and that we need not prevent more people from coming in to protect the residents of Woking. I am sure that they are very safe in being represented by someone like the hon. Gentleman, and in having a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  I never thought that I would say this in the House, but I welcome this immigration Bill. I welcome it because it delivers on a number of key commitments that the Labour party gave at the last election. I also welcome it because it will be passed in the year of the silver jubilee of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Given my hon. Friend's passionate support for it, perhaps we should call it the Snape Bill.
  In discussing the Bill, we should bear in mind the decision of the new Labour Government in 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule. That was done within a few months of the Government's election. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his courageous decision, and for the steps that he has taken in the past 18 months to ensure that we have a firm and fair immigration system.
  I also pay tribute to the Under—Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). He is no pushover. I do not want to damage his career for ever: he is very tough, but also very fair. I find that in my surgeries I am being much tougher on cases that are not genuine, because I know that when I take cases to my hon. Friend that need to be explained but have compassionate elements, he will listen carefully. I thank him for all the help that he has given during the past two years.
  I welcome the Bill for four main reasons. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the need for the regulation of immigration advisers, and the Bill would regulate them. I have my own horrendous stories to tell. A firm of solicitors in my constituency—solicitors are not included in the Bill, and I am sad about that—faxes my office at the last minute, at 5.30 pm on a Friday, saying that it wants to make an application for judicial review.
  I feel duty bound—because I stand in the shoes of my constituents—to pass that information on to the Home Office. I never bin those representations. Even though I know that they are not genuine, I pass them on to the Minister's office because we cannot, in the time that we have available very late on a Friday afternoon, decide between what is genuine and what is not. We have

  77
  complaints about solicitors. It is important for us to send a message to the president of the Law Society that he needs to get the office for the supervision of solicitors in order, so that the complaints that all of us have made are treated properly and seriously and action is taken.
  On the decision to regulate other immigration advisers, I have to say that throughout the country many organisations provide free legal advice—indeed, many community leaders provide such advice in my constituency. I often feel that they take on more than they realise. Immigration is a very complex and complicated subject. Even if people offer free advice, it is not easy to give the sort of detailed advice that is necessary on immigration cases. I pay tribute to those organisations because they provide a service, but people with genuine problems in the complex area of immigration law need to go to those who know what they are talking about. I hope that the message that will come out of the Bill—certainly the clauses that deal with the regulation of immigration advisers—is that people should not touch the subject until and unless they know about it, and that they will not be allowed to deal with it unless they are regulated.
  Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Minister has not been particularly helpful on those cases that we bring to him where duff advice has been given by immigration officers. There is no agreement from his office, and no policy guidance, that says that, if people go to an immigration adviser who gives them duff advice and they are left in a situation where they have to leave the country, they will be treated differently. Even when we go to Ministers at the end of the process, they are not likely to look sympathetically at that issue, so it is important that we get proper regulation.
  I welcome strongly the decision to restore an appeals system for visitors. Recently, I secured an Adjournment debate during which I noted the problems in several posts abroad and the difficulty of getting any decisions out of the Foreign Office. Subsequently, several hon. Members and I met the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Symons, to discuss those issues.
  The Minister should go a stage further. The Home Office should take over control of entry clearance issues abroad. It is daft that we have to deal with two different Departments. We first have to make representations to the Foreign Office on visitors cases; then, in exceptional cases outside the rules, we can go to the Minister at the Home Office. That is nonsense. We should have to deal with one Department. It is the Home Office that makes the policy and it is to the Home Office that we should make our representations.
  I welcome the right of appeal, but in the next few months we will still go to the Minister and to Baroness Symons and say, "On certain cases that are genuine and compassionate we would like Ministers to intervene because the appeals system does not deal with that problem." Nor will it deal with those people who come to this country who are not family members—I hope that the Minister will be able to describe what he means by family members—but very close friends and members of the extended family.
  In the culture of the Asian community, sisters can be cousin-sisters and brothers can be cousin-brothers. It can be a very large family. All sorts of uncles, aunts and in-laws can suddenly appear. It is important that the net
  78
  is drawn as widely as possible simply because of the nature of the community that the change seeks to help. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what he means by "family". I know that the Bill excludes close friends, but I hope that we can persuade him in Committee that it should not do so because many close friends wish to visit in this country. It would be a tragedy if they were excluded because of the narrow confines of the Bill.
  The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is an organisation for which I have always had enormous respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who probably knows more about immigration than most of us, is a former director. It has issued a press release telling us that the Bill is:
  "Another attack on black and immigrant communities!"
  It is absolutely wrong. The measure on visitors appeals will be warmly welcomed in Leicester; my constituents have been asking for it for years and years. The Labour party has been calling for it for years and years. The bond system is another measure that we support.
  I am astonished that the hon. Member for Woking should start speaking up for the poor. I remember when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to one of the Ministers at the Home Office when it introduced awful immigration legislation that restricted the rights of people to come to this country. In fact, I think that he was a PPS when the visitors' appeals legislation was abolished, so that they could not appeal. He might have been in limbo for five years, but I am sure that he was associated in some way with that measure. He was certainly a PPS at the Home Office.
  Mr. Malins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will.
  Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the House from 1992 to 1997. If he wants to criticise my work in the ethnic community in the years that I was out of the House, he is free to do so and to make as many cheap points as he wants.
  Mr. Vaz: I am not making cheap points. I am mentioning the fact that there is no point in an hon. Member getting up in the Chamber and acting as if he has collective amnesia. The fact is that the previous Government introduced most of those restrictive measures. I take that as an apology. The hon. Gentleman was not here, so he was not responsible for the removal of the right of appeal.
  Mr. Corbyn: Can I help?
  Mr. Vaz: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Corbyn: Just so the historical record is accurate, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) did lose his seat in the 1992 election, but he was here in 1991 when the original legislation was introduced, which fell because of the 1992 general election, so my hon. Friend may be spot on in ascribing guilt to him.
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that we have someone with such knowledge, who knows about such things and stores them up in his memory. I thank him for his help.

  79
  The bond system is one with which the hon. Member for Woking should be familiar because he is a stipendiary magistrate. Surely the bail system acts against the very poor. Let us have a system that can at least be administered. Many of my constituents have come to my surgery and said, "If only the Department would accept bonds. It will not let my relative in, but the application is genuine. It will not accept my undertaking. It will not accept my Member of Parliament's undertaking. What is the point of having a Member of Parliament? What is the point of going to Ministers? I will put up £1,000 or whatever. I will get that money back when my relative goes back." Therefore, the bond system will be welcomed.
  I know that the scheme is only at the pilot stage and that no decision has been taken on where pilot schemes are to operate. I put in an early bid for the people of Leicester. If it is going to operate from abroad, I put in an early bid for Bombay because it is important that we have a post that is very busy. Let us try out the system and find out whether it works. I think that, in 100 per cent. of cases, it will be successful because people will not want to lose their money. Many people ask us about the matter.
  I am against increasing fees in immigration and asylum work. However, if people pay they will at least have a system that works. If fees are introduced, I will want an efficient and effective system and something to be done about the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Vaz: I shall not because time is short.
  My constituents would gladly pay a modest fee if they knew that the current system at IND were efficient. What we have is a shambles. I am glad to know that the shambles began—I am sorry to know, but it is a matter of fact—under the previous Government. I want to know more about the contract that the previous Government entered into over the computer system, which clearly does not work.
  I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for what is happening at IND, but the fact is that there are massive delays. It is a sad reflection that the only time people take notice of the issue is when City bond dealers complain. Page six of The Times today states:
  "A City bond dealer who contacted The Times was told that it would take four to six months to renew his Croatian wife's visa. In 60 telephone calls, he could reach only an answerphone."
  The dealer stated:
  "It is a total shambles. If you go down there at 7.15 am there are sometimes up to 200 people waiting outside the building and then when they get in there are hardly any facilities."
  It is an appalling system.
  I know that the Minister has written to hon. Members to say, "Please don't write to us, because the files have been removed." Moreover, the article in The Times—perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is true—states that boxes of files are in buildings, in one case in an underground garage, that staff cannot enter because of health hazards.
  80
  I have raised a number of cases with senior IND members—some of whom are in the House for today's debate; it is a pity that they are not available when we ring them up—but have received no response. The only star on the dark horizon is a woman named Jackie Morar. When I contact her, things get done. However, hon. Members should not have to shout, scream and ring up to complain. Jackie Morar is the head of IND's public inquiry unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "What's her number?"] I do not have her direct number, but I am sure that the Minister will give it to hon. Members who ring him for it.
  Hon. Members realise that the system is under pressure. However, the point is that people have to get back their passports and have their applications dealt with—which is not happening. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary visited IND. I hope that the Minister will visit IND and do something about its operation.
  There is an enormous difference between dealing with the Minister's private office and with IND officials, who are supposed to deal with hon. Members. Therefore, let us have also a dedicated unit at IND in Liverpool to deal with hon. Members. Currently, there is no such unit, and hon. Members who try to find out what is happening with naturalisations are not receiving an answer. Let us consider making those administrative changes. The Minister has our support in what he is seeking to do to streamline and modernise the system, but he must ensure that the administration that seeks to run the system works.
  I welcome the fact that there will be a Special Standing Committee, which is the best way to take evidence and hear from those who will be affected by the legislation. I ask only that the Special Standing Committee visits Britain's major cities to hear from the communities themselves about the way in which immigration control affects them. I hope that such a process will turn a good Bill into an excellent Bill, as hon. Members will be provided with the type of information that we—although we have our own experience—clearly lack.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Edward Gamier: The constituency of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) borders my constituency for a few hundred yards. However, our constituencies could not be more different in terms of the populations whom we represent. He has a huge number of constituents of Asian and other non-white origin, whereas my constituency has an almost entirely white population. Therefore, my constituency experience must be rather different from his. None the less, we both—I hope—approach the Bill with a sense of mutual good will. I only regret that he felt it sensible to make personal remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who can claim above most other Opposition Members to have studied the asylum and immigration issue with a clear conscience and a well-motivated heart. I was disappointed about only that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  In the short time available to me, I shall not concentrate on the parts of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke, but make a few points primarily about part II. First, however, I should say that I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an enormous Bill, which contains 50 order-making powers. Although I agree that previous Conservative Governments have passed similar legislation, I regret the way in which the current

  81
  Government are introducing legislation containing regulation-making provisions that allow a Secretary of State in the House, or the Lord Chancellor in the other place, to make subsidiary legislation. I should like more legislation, and more detailed legislation, to be dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than by using order-making powers.
  I should like to make a brief point on part I, and then to make other points on part II. I draw the Minister's attention directly to clause 7, which deals with the provision of financial security. Like most hon. Members, I agree that allowing people to put up bonds is a sensible provision. I simply wonder what on earth clause 7(2) is supposed to mean. Clause 7(1) states:
  "In such circumstances as may be specified, the Secretary of State may require security to be given, with respect to a person applying for entry clearance, before clearance is given."
  That is clear enough. However, clause 7(2) states:
  "In such circumstances as may be specified—
  (a) the Secretary of State may accept security with respect to a person who is applying for entry clearance but for whom security is not required".
  What does that mean? Does it mean that someone may volunteer to give security?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.
  Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Minister has been able to clarify that point.
  Part II deals with carriers' liability. In it, we enter into a part of the Bill that would impose huge burdens on the carrying industry—whether airlines, road hauliers or owners of ferry companies. Part II carries a superficial attraction. Nevertheless, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that, although many of the provisions in part II are worthy ones, Opposition Members hope that the Minister and his colleagues are sincere when they say that they will consult more widely on how the provisions are brought into effect, as they could have damaging effects on the businesses that are likely to be caught by them.
  Clause 18, for example, states the responsibilities of those who bring in clandestine entrants, and that they will be liable to
  "a penalty of the prescribed amount in respect of the clandestine entrant; and
  (b) an additional penalty of that amount in respect of each person who was concealed with the clandestine person in the same transporter."
  In no part of the Bill are we told the level of those penalties. Although it is stated that they will be administrative, civil penalties, they will have exactly the same consequence for the respondents as if they had been imposed by a Crown court or a magistrates court. It would behove the Government to be rather more clear—if not today, at a later stage—about the penalty levels that they are talking about.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the previous Government introduced carriers'
  82
  liability for airlines, and that the figure has been about £2,000 per individual illegally carried. That is the type of figure that we are considering.
  Mr. Clappison: That was a stupid point.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that the Minister's reply answered my point. [Interruption.] I should be most grateful if the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary interventions that are not adding to the debate.
  Mr. Garnier: Although I appreciate that £2,000 is mentioned later in the Bill, I am not sure that the Minister's reply sensibly answered my question. If he would like to consider the matter, I should be grateful if he could explain the position more fully.
  I am concerned also about clause 18(4), which states:
  "Payment of the full amount of a penalty by one or more of the persons responsible for the clandestine entrant discharges the liability of each of the persons responsible for that entrant."
  It is said to be a civil penalty, not a criminal one. Does that mean that each co-defendant will be entitled to apply to any other co-defendant for a contribution? If the first defendant has paid the full sum, will he be able subsequently to recover a contribution from the others?
  Clause 18(5) is also unclear, as it does not seem to explain what will happen in the case of, for example, a clandestine entrant who is concealed within a container that is separate from the bed of the trailer, which is itself separate from the tractor unit. All those vehicles or containers could be subject to separate ownership, separate hiring agreements, separate hire purchase agreements or separate leasing agreements. The Bill is unclear about the liability of each of those owners who may know of the concealed person.
  Clause 20 deals with defences—at least there are some. No doubt the Minister will say that the burden of proof in all immigration cases tends to be on the defendant or respondent, but we are talking about huge financial penalties and vehicles that could be the only trading equipment of a company being subject to confiscation and sale, so it is important to flag up the difficulties that many defendants will face when the burden is placed firmly on them to prove their innocence.
  Clause 20(2) says:
  "It is a defence for the carrier to show that he, or an employee of his who was directly responsible for allowing the clandestine entrant to be concealed, was acting under duress."
  Clause 20(3) provides for the carrier not knowing to be a defence. I should be more comfortable if the Bill said that it was for the prosecutor or immigration authority to prove the guilt of the defendant. There are further problems with subsections (5) and (6) of clause 20, which deal with the defences of duress and those listed under subsection (3). I shall not detain the House further on that, save to say that the provisions are unclearly worded. A little more thought ought to be given to them.

  83
  There is a further problem in clause 21, which says that the Secretary of State can serve penalty notices on the responsible persons. Subsection (4) grandly states that
  "the Secretary of State is to be taken to have served the required penalty notice on each of them"—
  albeit that subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to
  "take reasonable steps to secure that the penalty notice is actually served on each of those responsible persons."
  That is very nice.
  But clause 20(6) is extraordinary. It says that if a person on whom a penalty notice is served, or—this is the important point—who is treated as having had a penalty notice served on him, alleges that he is not liable for the penalty, he may give written notice of his allegation to the Secretary of State. If he has not received the notice, even if he is being treated as having had it served on him, how is he to know when he is to give written notice? That is illogical.
  I should like an explanation of the definitions in clause 28 of "small ship" and "small aircraft". What is the magic of the weight definitions? Why cannot a bigger vessel or aircraft be subject to the same penalties as a small ship or aircraft under clause 22(1)?
  Clause 22(4) says:
  "The detention of a transporter under this section is lawful even though it is subsequently established that the penalty notice on which the detention was based was ill-founded in respect of all or any of the penalties to which it was related."
  There is a potential for huge economic loss there. It is grossly unfair if the Government, through their agencies, can go around giving tickets to the owners or hirers of such vehicles, causing economic loss—albeit that the Secretary of State was not acting maliciously or unreasonably—and not be responsible for compensating the carrier.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point with his legal expertise. Does he agree that the issue needs to be examined in some detail? The risk of detention of the vehicle could create such economic loss for the lorry firm or lorry driver that they may be pressured into admitting the offence and not advancing any defence to get their vehicle back quicker.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to press the Minister on that in the Special Standing Committee. I wanted to flag up the issue, which relates to clause 27(4) as well.
  I am also concerned about the words "significant doubt" in clause 23. Subsection (3)(b) says that the court may release a transporter if it considers that
  "there is a significant doubt as to whether the penalty is payable".
  What does that mean? That woefully unclear expression is used again in clause 27(2)(b).
  Under clause 24, the court that deals with applications will be the magistrates court, or its equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be more sensible for applications to be dealt with by a Crown court or its equivalent, because the issues involve equipment of great value and, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East was quick to say, the law is very complicated. Magistrates are perfectly capable of dealing with all sorts of matters, but
  84
  it would not do any harm to bring such issues before a Crown court or its equivalent in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Clause 25 says:
  "No charge is payable in respect of any person who is shown by the owner or train operator"—
  once again the burden of proof is placed on the defendant—
  "to have produced the required document or documents to him or his representative".
  How can that be done when a traveller destroys an apparently genuine document because it is forged? My hon. Friend the Member for Woking drew attention to that.
  Other potentially draconian aspects of the Bill require careful thought. The Bill contains many sensible suggestions, but it also contains too many powers for the Secretary of State and too many areas of vagueness, which cause me considerable alarm. The Minister should pay attention to the few points that I have made in the little time available to me. Unless the Bill is put right, it will lead to further problems and dissatisfaction with the working of the immigration and asylum regime in this country.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I want to say a few words about the background. When such issues are debated, the atmosphere is at worst hysterical—as we saw in some of the press coverage last year of what was happening in Dover and the south-east—and even at best full of misinformation, as we heard in the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about numbers, origins and rates of success.
  We should remember that the majority of asylum seekers across the world—the 25 million or 30 million displaced people—are not in this country or in Europe and never will be. The majority of them live in poor countries adjacent to the countries from which they have fled. We in Europe are rich and we are not carrying the bulk of the burden of asylum seekers. It is being carried by poor countries across the world. Even in Europe, this country does not carry a disproportionate burden.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about the vast majority of cases being unjustified because they were economic migrants. Some 40 per cent. of asylum applications in this country come from just four areas: the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Anyone who knows what is happening in those countries should not be surprised by that figure.
  We know that there are problems with the current system. Well, there is no system. We were left with a shambles. The previous Government intended to leave asylum seekers who applied in-country destitute. The local authorities were left to pick up the burden, leaving a shambles. The Home Office system cannot cope. Something must be done about that.
  The question must be whether the right action is being taken. Some of the Government's action has been welcome, including the abolition of primary purpose and the greater openness in looking at country reports when asylum decisions are taken. However, the hon. and

  85
  learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to parts of the Bill where it is difficult to see precisely what will happen.
  I disapproved of the previous Government using regulations to deal with the detail of legislation, and I have not changed my view. In some parts of the Bill—even those parts that are to be welcomed, such as the restoration of visit visa appeals—we do not know what the fees will be, or what fees will be set for bonds. We do not know what the fees will be for the regulation of advisers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the administrative changes that are needed within the Home Office. I do not blame the present incumbents, because we inherited an appalling system which tried to deal on paper with huge numbers of cases, with no proper information technology systems and no mechanism for tracing what was done. However, if we try to embark on a new system without sorting out the existing shambles—while the Home Office is trying also to administer support—it will be a disaster.
  We need to put in legal resources at the beginning of the process. UNHCR said in response to the White Paper:
  "The Achilles heel of the current asylum system is, in our view, the quality of initial decision-making. As long as Home Office decisions on asylum applications are inconsistent, leaning on questionable credibility arguments, they will be challenged in appeal."
  We must improve that.
  I am pleased that the Bill will be discussed in a Special Standing Committee, a clear sign that the Government will listen to concerns raised not just by those within this House, but by organisations outside.
  On immigration—which only a small part of the Bill deals with—the changes are, by and large, welcome, including the proposals on the visit visa appeal and the regulation of advisers. However, we must look at how the bond system will relate to the appeals system when the two are working alongside each other, as some people may be subject to both. In what cases will bonds be applied?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said that his constituents would not mind paying modest fees to have decent decisions taken. If I read the Bill correctly, those fees may not be so modest. The explanatory notes suggest that people will be charged full costs. I would like to see some examples of what that will mean to those applying for leave to remain or for indefinite leave.
  I have a serious worry about taking appeal rights away from people who currently have them. Some may be overstayers, and may not have adhered to the conditions attached to their leave to remain. They are very often people who have been in this country for a long time, and may have children born here. In effect, they may have settled here. It may be perfectly legitimate to argue that, in many of those cases, the situation should never have been allowed to arise. However, those cases exist, and many people will lose appeal rights. I have seen nothing in the Bill to suggest that there is any transition, or that anybody who currently has an appeal right will not lose it as soon as the Bill comes into force. Nor do I see what the mechanism might be if compassionate circumstances are to be taken into account.
  The same problem applies to one-stop appeals. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), my right hon.
  86
  Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that that process would deal with all appealable aspects. That still leaves us with the question of how compassionate issues might be looked at. If an applicant is refused asylum and is not given exceptional leave to remain, he can appeal against the asylum refusal on the grounds of the UN convention or the European convention on human rights. However, it will still be difficult to appeal against a refusal to use discretion.
  Ministers will know that I have argued that we ought to think about formalising exceptional leave and about having a proper right of appeal. I am worried about the proposal which suggests that, in the view of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, it can be decided that an appeal lacks merit—before the appeal has been heard—and that a financial penalty will be applied if someone persists with the appeal.
  I have looked through many of the responses to the White Paper and the one issue raised consistently was that of support. Ministers have said that cash benefits act as a draw. I am not sure that I have seen hard evidence to back that up. In 1996, the Tory Government took benefits away from people who applied in-country, but left them for those who applied at port. If cash benefits are a draw, one might have expected to see a change in the balance of applications. Perhaps more people would sus out that it was better to apply at the port of entry rather than in-country. However, that has not happened, and that balance has not changed.
  I represent a London borough, and I know of the pressures in terms of temporary accommodation. If the Government are determined to go ahead with a cashless system, the big question will be whether dispersal will work. The history of dispersal is not a happy one. The Vietnamese boat people drifted back very quickly to where they knew people.
  I can think of no reason to assume that London is the only place in this country where asylum seekers can live and be accommodated. That is a ridiculous suggestion. If we are to disperse to places where there is no shortage of housing, it is almost inevitable that those places will be deprived areas which are suffering unemployment and economic problems; that is why there is empty housing. We must look at how we provide support, legal advice, education and medical help, and at whether £7 a week—the sort of cash figure that is being talked about—is sufficient to maintain any dignity for someone living on vouchers.
  There is nothing in the Bill about settlement. That issue may be outside the scope of the Bill, but if we do not put real resources into helping people to settle, it is inevitable that there will be a drift back. There is a danger that we will create clusters of socially excluded people. Tensions and arguments may grow between established ethnic minority communities in deprived areas and people who have been shipped into those areas, who may be seen to be competing for, and taking away, resources.
  We are told that the search and arrest powers to be given to immigration officers will be modelled on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I am not sure what "modelled" means and what the differences will be, but there is a big issue concerning accountability. If I am arrested, charged and taken to court, and my lawyers can show that the police have not followed the provisions of PACE, there is some redress: I may be acquitted, and it

  87
  is likely that evidence against me will be ruled inadmissible if it was obtained by methods that do not fit with PACE. What will the redress be in immigration cases? People who are arrested might be put on a plane in a couple of days, so how can we be sure that procedures along the lines of PACE are followed?
  I understand perfectly the necessity for change. We do not have a working system, with proper decision making and methods in the Home Office for tracking cases through. It is ridiculous that we have multiple layers of appeals that allow cases to be dragged out and fraudulent advisers to push people into totally unfounded claims. I welcome some of the changes in the Bill, fulfilling manifesto commitments, but there are serious difficulties that must be considered in other parts of the Bill.
  I hope that in the Special Standing Committee and on Report and Third Reading we will consider those problems. The first Standing Committee on which I served was on the Bill that became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; and I also served on the Committee for the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Perhaps I will serve on the Committee for the 1999 Act, but I do not want to have to serve on the Committee for the 2002 Act. We must get it right this time.
  I hope that, in Committee, the Government will listen and make some necessary changes in the detail of the Bill. Let us get it right and make it work.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: The debate has been remarkable for the fact that the opposition to the Bill seems to be coming from two totally different quarters: the mature and constructive opposition exemplified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the grumblings of discontent from those on the Government Back Benches.
  I want to bring the perspective of a south coast constituency to the debate. We are all agreed that, nationally, we have a very big problem. Not only is it a massive problem, but no one really knows its dimensions. The figure of 46,000 applications in 1998, when there were only 4,000 a year not that many years ago, gives some idea of the scale of the problem. Figures have been bandied about for the number of asylum seekers who have gone AWOL, as it were, but no one knows, or can know, the precise figure, or anything like it.
  One thing that we know with certainty is that the great majority of applicants will not turn out to be genuine asylum seekers. Any regime must recognise that the great majority of applicants—who, of course, should be treated courteously and humanely while their applications are being processed, which we hope will be done swiftly—will turn out to be making bogus applications.
  It bears repeating that we have a long and distinguished history of tolerance and generosity to genuine refugees and asylum seekers. After all, did we not permit Karl Marx to sit in the reading room of the British museum writing "Das Kapital"?
  I welcome certain aspects of the Bill, as have some of my hon. Friends. The simplified system for processing applications looks pretty good, at least on paper. There is a lot of detail to be gone into in Committee. Again, the
  88
  one-stop system for dealing with appeals looks in theory to be an improvement, and let us hope that it is. We hope that it will not prove to be merely another excess of bureaucracy. The new arrangements for detention also seem sensible.
  There are some real concerns, the first of which is what amounts to an amnesty for 30,000 or 40,000 people who are already in the country and whose applications are not to be tested or justified in any sense. They will simply be allowed through the system because they have managed to survive this long without being detected or sent home. What message does that send to future applicants? Is it likely to stem or reduce the flow of applicants?
  We have already heard that there are all sorts of problems, in the Balkans and elsewhere, that are not about to get any better. People will not be less likely to turn their eyes enviously to this country. We should not add to that an apparent message from the Government that if people can get here and stay here long enough without being found out, they will be allowed to stay permanently. That is most unhelpful, and it is especially unfair on those who have been through the mill and proved their case, achieving in the proper way the right to stay here.
  I want to focus principally on part VI, especially as it affects a seaside constituency such as mine. The plight of seaside towns is bad, and the Bill could make it even worse. I asked the Home Office how many asylum seekers or refugees were currently living in my constituency or residing in council or housing association accommodation. I was somewhat startled at the reply. It said:
  "This information is not available to the Home Office and the hon. Member should approach the local authority."—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 465.]
  I am worried about how the Home Office intends to proceed when it cannot even tell a Member of Parliament how many people are already living in a particular part of the country.
  I then addressed myself to Eastbourne borough council. I should explain, by way of parenthesis, the recent background of the problem. The difficulties with asylum seekers come in addition to an on-going problem that we have had in seaside towns for at least a decade, with the change in holidaymaking patterns, whereby, increasingly, guest houses and small hotels have been used as hostels for social security claimants.
  In the previous Parliament, some of us got together to lobby for changes. We were successful in changing planning law and we got some tough provisions put in the last Housing Act—1996—of the previous Government. Based on that, many local authorities, including my own, are introducing a tough inspection regime for houses in multiple occupation. I welcome that, but 1 would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on how the new regime may collide with some of the problems that 1 am about to describe.
  At present, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants can come to my constituency in one of two ways: they can simply find their way to Eastbourne, and by definition we have no way of knowing how many people fall into that category, as unless they make contact with a particular agency, it is unlikely that they will show up on the radar screen, as it were; but dwarfing that problem—as far as I can tell—is the problem of other parts of the country, and especially certain London boroughs, entering into

  89
  commercial arrangements to house people in places such as Eastbourne, where, of course, accommodation such as guest houses and small hotels is readily available, especially outside the holiday season.
  One of the startling powers in the Bill is the setting up of what are called, in slightly chilling fashion, reception zones. Albeit those zones can be a matter for consultations with local authorities, the Government intend, as I understand it, to take the power to designate areas and, in effect, billet asylum seekers on particular parts of the country, almost as in wartime.
  I raised that issue in a recent meeting with my local council. I was aware of its concerns about the problem, which are shared by many other resorts. The British Resorts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has discussed the problem and its president, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) has corresponded with the Under-Secretary on the issue. The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the problem in his constituency, which is not dissimilar to that faced by many coastal resorts. He queried whether such resorts were likely to be targeted for such accommodation. The response from the Minister was less than reassuring. It stated:
  "It is too early to say to what degree this accommodation is likely to be found in seaside resorts, but I would not disagree that, along with the major conurbations, suitable accommodation is likely to be found in coastal towns."
  I find that worrying, and so does the British Resorts Association.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman refers to a policy that I understand that Westminster council has followed. Will he condemn that council for its practice?
  Mr. Waterson: I shall come on to that point, but my understanding is that Westminster is not one of the major offenders.
  Mr. Coleman: Who are they?
  Mr. Waterson: I shall come to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. BRA was not wholly reassured by that response from the Minister and the minutes of its discussion of the issue state:
  "Members did not believe that the Minister's response altered the general perception that major resort towns were likely to be singled out as convenient hosts for significant numbers of asylum seekers, despite their obvious lack of adequate social and welfare support."
  According to the hard-pressed council officers who deal with housing in my constituency with whom I had a meeting last Friday, certain London boroughs—I believe the major offenders are Newham, Wandsworth and Haringey, but that is not an exhaustive list and there may be others who use other coastal towns—are using brokers. One of the most active brokers is VIP, which is based at a post office box number in Brighton. Such brokers make block bookings in guest houses and small hotels in my constituency and others along the south coast. They hide behind a veneer of confidentiality, so when my council officers approach the brokers, they refuse to reveal details because of commercial confidentiality. Those brokers are a front for those London boroughs, and possibly other boroughs, to make those block bookings.
  90
  One might think that there would be some comity or a spirit of co-operation between the boroughs involved. The various local government organisations have recognised that best practice in such circumstances is for the boroughs making the placements to share information about numbers, needs and the services required with the recipient boroughs. However, housing officers in Eastbourne tell me a contrary story. They are convinced that the boroughs are breaching best practice. The officers find it very difficult to prise out of the boroughs any details about how many individuals or families are involved, and that is wholly unacceptable. I cannot believe that any hon. Member takes a different view of the issue.
  As a result, my local council has no idea of the total numbers involved, the likely stresses and burdens that will be placed on local services or how much greater the problem is likely to become. I ask the Minister to address the issue, because it will take some time for the Bill's provisions to be implemented and in the interim we need proposals to deal with the problem. I am aware that some regional consortiums are being set up that will have some effect on the problem, but will the boroughs involved in trying to offload asylum seekers have a legal obligation to provide the information that I have mentioned? Or will other councils have to rely on such boroughs' good will?
  My borough is not atypical. My council officers are doing their best in difficult circumstances, but they have not received the co-operation that they deserve from fellow officers in other boroughs.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: No, because I do not have time to do so. If the Minister will not take powers to deal with the problem, he should adopt a policy of naming and shaming the boroughs which are in breach of a duty of good will to their fellow councils on the south coast. The consortiums approach may be successful—I hope so—but it is clear that certain councils, especially in London, are abusing the situation and placing unnecessary burdens on areas such as Eastbourne and its hard-pressed services, including health, social services and education. There is no sign at the moment that anything is changing and I hope that the Minister will address that issue when he replies to the debate.
  7.46 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  "We oppose the Bill because it is inconsistent with our obligations under international law; it will damage race relations; and it will be neither firm in its effect nor fair in its intent."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 723.]
  That is of course a quotation from the speech by the current Home Secretary in the Second Reading debate on the last immigration and asylum legislation to come before the House. As it happens, that quotation touches on some of the points that I wish to make about the Bill.
  I represent one of the largest refugee populations in the country. My constituency has refugees from every quarter of the globe, including Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria and Somalia, and it has a huge population of Turks and Kurds. My concern about how we treat refugees and asylum

  91
  seekers is based both in principle and in practice, because I will have to deal daily with the consequences of the Bill if it is not properly and carefully drafted.
  As someone who for 12 years now has had to lead constituents through the highways and byways of immigration legislation to try to help them with their manifold problems, I believe that the Bill is a lost opportunity. One of the problems with the current immigration and asylum legislation is that it is a mess. All too often, legislation has been forced through Parliament in response to a scare, whether about east African Asians or refugees from Kosovo. I have tried for 12 years as a Member of Parliament, and for many years before that in the community, to try to understand the legislation and to help people find their way through the rules. However, asylum seekers face a labyrinth that is full of inconsistencies.
  The Government have missed an opportunity to begin the process of constructing an asylum system that is transparent, fair, equitable and, above all, free from any taint of racism. For example, the legislation contains no fewer than 50 order-making powers. I have spent much time working on immigration and refugee issues and I know that much of the unfairness of the system creeps in through the circular instructions, the orders and the statutory instruments.
  I shall first address the Bill as it relates to our obligations under international law. I remind the House what the United Nations convention on the rights of the child states in article 26:
  "States Parties shall recognise for every child the right to benefit from social security including social insurance and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realisation of this right in accordance with their national law."
  I also remind the House of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. Article 24 states:
  "The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in the territory the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in respect of the following matters … social security."
  I do not therefore believe that the proposals in the Bill for maintenance and support are in accordance with the spirit and possibly even the letter of our obligations under international law. My concern is not merely a technical, legalistic quibble. I live in the middle of a large refugee community and I want to know whether the proposals will work. If they do not, they will cause an awful lot of suffering and unhappiness to some of my constituents.
  Ministers, of this Government and the previous one, have insisted that cash benefits draw refugees to this country. I hope that evidence is provided in Committee to support the contention that cash benefits are the draw, rather then the length of time that it takes to sort cases out.
  Moreover, will the arrangements for support include minimum standards of maintenance? How much cash will people have? My son goes to school with children who are refugees from Algeria, Somalia and west Africa: will the mothers of those children lack the money for school outings or coach fares, or to buy drinks? Will there be clusters of second-class refugee children whose mothers do not have access to those simple things that cost a few pounds here and there every week? I should hate to think that I supported a Government who would impose such a regime on children.
  92
  I am not happy with the voucher system that is currently in place. The Children's Society has found, from its east London project, that families and children who depend on vouchers to get food are often subject to racial harassment and discrimination in local shops. I understand the reasoning behind the voucher scheme, but it can be degrading and demeaning.
  I turn now to the proposals for dispersal. Given what happened to the Vietnamese and the east African Asians, I thought that it had been demonstrated that dispersal does not work. The Government propose that refugees and asylum seekers—who will not have access to benefit—will be separated from family and friends and dispersed outside London. However, many will come back to London, even though they have no benefits. Some of them will find themselves in places where they cannot buy the food to which they are accustomed, or where there is no mosque for them to attend. Many will be illiterate: there will be no language networks for them to plug into, nor any of the informal information networks with which they are familiar, and the schools will not be used to refugee children.
  I believe that many asylum seekers will drift back to places such as Hackney or south London and that the Members of Parliament who live and work in those communities, as well as the Churches and the volunteer groups, will have to pick up the pieces. I want to hear more about how dispersal will work. My fear is that it will prove unfair, cruel and unworkable.
  What I have to say about race and community relations has less to do with the contents of the Bill than with some of the appalling comment that has appeared recently in the press and in the public debate about refugee and asylum matters. It has become common, in the media and among Ministers, to talk about economic migrants as if they were subhuman, yet—regardless of whether they are Irish navvies, east African Asian shop owners, the West Indians who came to work on buses and in hospitals or the west Africans who do the cleaning jobs—it is economic migrants who have built London.
  I am the daughter of economic migrants, and I take exception to the tone sometimes used to describe such people. It is as if there is something wrong with travelling thousands of miles from starvation and poverty to try to better the lot of one's family. Economic migrants may not be easy to accommodate under the letter of refugee law, but it is wrong to ignore the fact that they are honestly trying to do the best that they can for their families. There is a long tradition in my part of London of welcoming economic migrants, who have done so much to make Hackney the vibrant and energetic place that it is.
  The public debate in which refugees and asylum seekers are blamed as the cause of so much crime, for example, is most distasteful. It is sad that it was the Kent police, rather than a Minister, who said that some of the media comment was tantamount to an incitement to racial hatred. I note, in passing, that the Bill does not take the opportunity to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which requires employers to take details of people's race and nationality. Labour Members at the time argued long and hard that section 8 would be racist in its effect, so I am surprised that the opportunity to repeal it has not been taken.
  Finally, the Bill gives immigration officers new powers of arrest and search. Those officers have no formal training in such matters, there is no published manual

  93
  covering safe methods of restraint, and there will be no independent complaints body: it is as if Ministers had never heard of Joy Gardner. I can think of nothing more likely to undermine community relations in Hackney and elsewhere than a proposal to allow the immigration officers we know and love to enter my constituents' homes with the power to arrest and search people but without proper training and oversight. I sincerely hope that Ministers will tackle that matter.
  If I understand Ministers correctly, constituents of mine who are asylum seekers and who are in council housing will lose the housing benefit and other social security benefits that they receive at present. They also stand to lose their housing. Given that most of them belong to the black and ethnic minorities, that will do no good to community relations, and I agree with what has been said about the loss of appeal rights for overstayers.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was in opposition and speaking against the 1996 Act, said that it would be neither firm nor fair. No one has more experience of dealing with the immigration authorities than my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and he has noted that the real problem is Lunar house. It is a shambles: no matter how wonderful the Bill might be, unless coherence, proper management and the necessary resources are devoted to Lunar house, there will be no prospect of refugees and asylum seekers getting a fair and effective service.
  I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight, because I believe that the Bill can be improved in Committee. I am aware that an interest in and knowledge of a subject is not sufficient to recommend me for membership of a Standing Committee, but I make my claim here and now, on the Floor of the House.
  I live in an area that has welcomed refugees and asylum seekers for more than a century. I am therefore well aware of the human side of these matters. It is one thing to put legislation on the statute book, but it is another to live with its consequences if it is insufficiently thought out. I hope that Ministers will change the tone of some of their remarks on immigration and asylum, as they create the wrong climate. I hope that they will address some of the practical consequences of the Bill and that they will listen carefully in Committee to the representations from the community and concerned organisations.
  British people have a tremendous record of welcoming asylum seekers and refugees. I want the Bill to aspire to the best traditions of this country, not to adopt the worst reflexes of some of our tabloid media.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her excellent contribution. She spoke for Liberal Democrat Members when she said that she hoped that a miracle might happen and that the Bill would be improved in Committee. I share many of her sentiments.
  I also apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who opened for the Opposition. I was not present for the beginning of his speech, as I was at a Home Office meeting on another matter.
  The situation in Portsmouth is somewhat unusual. The city is a large port, with a large ethnic community. Traditionally, over the centuries, we have welcomed
  94
  visitors to the city. We have a good, cosmopolitan and trouble-free atmosphere, of which the city is justifiably proud. A significant problem arises almost daily in the port of Portsmouth, which is second only to Dover in its numbers of freight movements and passengers passing through. Millions of people come through every year, and tens of thousands of cars and lorries. In any given year, a number of people enter illegally.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion that something will be done to help to solve that problem. Large fines and an emphasis on the role of haulage companies and drivers are not enough. They are part of the solution, but not the whole solution. The real problem lies on the other side of the channel in the inability of the French authorities to tackle the issue. I do not know whether many Members, or the Minister, have stood on the dock at Le Havre, Cherbourg or Calais to see how the French patrol their marshalling areas. They have dogs—I have seen them on the quayside at Le Havre—but their operations are small in scale.
  What is really needed is a genuine intent among the French authorities to ensure that lorries are properly secure while they wait to go on to ferries. Lorries should be checked regularly at the various truck stops on the major routes in France, particularly those from Italy. More advice could be given to haulage companies and drivers on the problems that they will face. Perhaps that would lead to a dramatic downturn in the number of people coming here.
  I recall working in Romania when five bodies were taken from the back of a container lorry on the border between Romania and Hungary. One of the men was young, probably not much more than 15. The bodies were left lying on the side of the road. Evidently, they had travelled from Iraq, overland through Turkey, Bulgaria and so on. They had changed vehicles three times. There was one survivor, and he told investigators how much money had changed hands.
  There are huge profits to be made from trafficking humans across the continent of Europe. We must rid ourselves of the real evil of transportation of people. Young girls from the former Yugoslavia or from other parts of eastern Europe walk the streets in most major capitals of Europe, selling sex. It is a disgrace to Europe that that trafficking of people is allowed to continue. We must work together to get to grips with the European dimension, and to deal with the dire situations in which many hopelessly vulnerable and isolated young people find themselves.
  I have heard hon. Member after hon. Member speak about the traditions of the United Kingdom, and about our always offering a safe haven to the genuine refugee or asylum seeker. The nation should be genuinely proud of that fact, and we should not allow our reputation to be downgraded. However, I am worried about the ways in which the system is abused. Like many other hon. Members, I have guest houses and hotels in my constituency which are being used as drop zones for people from the London boroughs. I see those people in Portsmouth and I see the problems associated with them.
  The VIP organisation is one of many that are making a substantial profit on transporting people from local authorities in London to elsewhere. It is seemingly better to lift the burden of the problem by putting it out of sight and out of mind. However, that policy simply passes on

  95
  the burden, and the Government must do more to help local authorities that are plagued with the problem. We must do more to assist people and to speed up the process.
  The White Paper talked of firmer, faster and fairer immigration controls. We must ensure that the Bill makes that idea a reality. No one would dissent from the need for firmer controls, but they must be interpreted consistently. Different answers should not be given to similar cases. Consistency is a real problem. We must make sure the system is faster because it is nonsense now. The situation at Croydon is farcical. Hon. Members have spoken time and again about that farce, and I have lost count of the letters I have written asking whether the process there can be speeded up. The problem must have something to do with underfunding in the immigration service. There must be enough resources to allow matters to be dealt with more firmly and faster.
  I do not know whether we will ever achieve a fairer system. One would hope that the Bill will deliver to those who want to come to the UK some assurance that their applications will be fairly dealt with. It is difficult to give people that confidence when hon. Members need merely think back over the past half dozen cases to see problems. One asylum seeker who was granted asylum five years ago had a father who wanted to visit him. The father, a Kurd, would have left his wife in Turkey, but he was refused because the authorities were unsure whether he would attempt to seek asylum as his son had. That man wanted only to come for a two-week stay. The reason for refusal was ludicrous.
  In another case, a Russian wanted to come here. He had visited the UK many times, but he was refused a subsequent visit. He had once taken English lessons, and the reason given on his immigration form for his recent refusal was the fact that he had asked for an interpreter. He wanted his interview to be held in Russian rather than English. Would anyone, knowing how difficult it is to get a visa, take a chance on being interviewed in anything other than their native tongue? It would not matter how good they were at English, or how much they wanted to impress the immigration officer.
  We must make sure such matters are dealt with fairly and consistently at all points at which people try to enter the United Kingdom. Reasons for refusal must be transparent, and people must understand them.
  We must do something about the number of people—estimates range from 40,000 to 50,000—who have gone to ground. What will happen to the people who disappeared into our population after exhausting all the procedures? What will be done to track them down? The Bill says little about that, but it has a lot to say about being hard on those people we know about. How will that be done? Will immigration officers be trained in new techniques, and in how to deal with the public in their homes? I hope that the Government do a better job of training those people than they have in training those who interview applicants for the new deal, as it is manifest that much of that training has fallen far short of what was desired. I hope that we see a significant improvement when it comes to immigration.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) mentioned airline carriers. He and I have probably received the same briefing from British Airways about the serious problems
  96
  that arise over the kind of information being asked for, how often the Government request it and what is expected of the company. We should clarify the position, not only for British Airways, but for all the airlines that operate in and out of the UK. It is obvious to those of us who have dealt with such cases that there is a difference of opinion among airlines as to how to interpret the rules. It is a fact that people get on to aircraft to come here, but the airlines have problems because of the lack of clarity in the information that has been given out in the past. We have to consider a whole range of similar issues.
  We have to ensure that children who seek to come to this country are given proper protection and that we enable them to flourish as human beings and develop their potential while they are here. We have to make sure that they are not disadvantaged by the changes this legislation will make. The Bill has serious flaws that might harm children in particular, so the Committee must build in proper safeguards to ensure against that.
  Most people recognise the need for the Government to take action. I know that there will be many people in all the communities that make up the cocktail of the UK population who are disappointed because the Bill does not contain certain measures. Our consideration of the way in which people are given the right to come to this country is long overdue, and many of the Bill's provisions will be welcomed. However, many will cause problems, fester and cause greater resentment about how we as a nation respond to the issue of immigration; an opportunity will have been lost.
  I welcome the tighter controls on immigration advisers, but I am bitterly disappointed that lawyers will not be covered. For the life of me, I cannot believe that the Law Society has either the will or the wherewithal to deliver on its commitment. I have seen many cases of people being charged for letters that I wrote on their behalf, and I find that offensive. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I have lost count of the number of late-night faxes that I have received on a Friday, asking whether I can take over a case and get leave for someone to remain while the lawyers seek more time. What they are really asking is for more time to enable them to make more money out of those poor people before they are sent back—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: And more mistakes.
  Mr. Hancock: Indeed—time to make more mistakes. The delivery of justice to many of these people is an utter travesty—they are ripped off, time and again, by unscrupulous lawyers and others.
  There are genuine advisers out there. It is annoying that the Home Office knows who those people are but does nothing, whereas what we need to do is put resources into ensuring that good practice spreads and is used more often. In that way, we can ensure that people have proper representation at all stages of the process. We have to make sure that lawyers take on immigration work only if someone in the practice is competent to deliver a proper service.
  The issue is a big one and I am disappointed that the Government have not been big enough to face up to the size of the problem. Much remains to be done and there will be a lot of disappointed people if we do not do it. We have to take action, but we must not make things so

  97
  difficult that genuine refugees and genuine visitors to this country feel unwelcome and unwanted. We have to make it clear that people who have a good case will to be welcome and that there is a process allowing their case to be heard. Genuine visitors to this country—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to an important debate. At the outset, I should declare an interest: I have been a practising barrister specialising in, among other things, immigration law. In the light of some of the remarks made by hon. Members this evening, I am not entirely sure whether I should instead apologise for that.
  As we all know, the Bill was introduced to deal with the chaotic shambles that was the legacy of the previous Government. I do not want to take up the House's time going over that ground again, because other hon. Members, especially Labour Members, have dealt with those issues. Instead, in the hope that reassurance will be forthcoming, I shall raise with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench specific concerns relating to asylum and support for asylum seekers. I shall address only certain fundamental principles, rather than the detailed concerns which I and others have raised tonight and will, no doubt, raise on other occasions.
  I have listened carefully to the debate thus far and I think that I accurately understand the Government's argument. The Government continue to affirm their absolute determination to fulfil all our obligations, both legal and moral, to genuine refugees; however, they also say, rightly, that the present system is being abused. They say that the claims of some of those who are claiming asylum are not genuine; that such claimants undermine support for genuine refugees; and that they increase the delays in dealing with all the claims that are made. The Government appear to claim that it is in part that which lies behind the chaos and shambles at Lunar house.
  The Government's three watchwords for reform are those by which last July's White Paper was titled: "Fairer, Faster and Firmer". They say that we must be fair, so as to fulfil our obligations; that we must do so speedily, so that we can cut the backlog in which so many languish; and that we must be firm with those who abuse the system. Against that broadly described argument, the compass of the fears that I express tonight can be narrowly described, for I agree that we must be fair; I agree that we must be fast; but I am concerned that, in our search for firmness, we might sacrifice fairness. I am concerned that we might be at risk of making that error by falling into the trap of wrongly identifying the reasons why people falsely claim asylum.
  The reasons are often rooted in abject poverty and lack of opportunity. Those factors may not found a legitimate claim for asylum, but nevertheless, for some people, they make terrible risks worth taking. With that in mind, we have to acknowledge the fact that there might be little we can do domestically to deter those who are desperate to come here—those who climb into the holds of aircraft, lodge themselves above the axles of articulated lorries, or cram themselves with many others into the back of those lorries and travel thousands of miles. I do not believe that people take such risks for the sake of the odd quid in benefits.
  98
  We all know that asylum seekers in this country suffer great hardship when they arrive here. We know that nearly two thirds of those interviewed by the Refugee Council did not have enough to eat on a daily basis; and that nearly three quarters were penniless, without the cash for bus fares and other necessities. I do not believe that those people come here because of the odd quid in benefits. They take the risks that have been described, partly because of cultural ties that draw them here, but mostly because of the conditions from which they are fleeing. The evidence largely bears that out.
  The Government have set their sights on those who abuse the system. Many of their targets are not only wholly legitimate, but targets that are essential for us to aim at, and to hit: the corrupt, who give clandestine passage in appalling and unsafe conditions, often at great expense to those who are transported; the rogue advisers, who exploit their clients after they arrive in this country; and all those who trade in the exploitation of human suffering. However, I am concerned that the Government have, in part, also set their sights on those who are suffering, especially those whom they describe as mere economic migrants.
  I understand that economic migrants might not be—indeed, are not—entitled to asylum, but the Government have to acknowledge certain truths when formulating their approach to such people. First, alongside economic migrants will come many people who have been persecuted, who truly fear for their lives, whose human rights are in grave jeopardy and to whom barriers designed to tackle economic migrants will be barriers also.
  Secondly, economic migrants also have fundamental human rights. Thirdly—and perhaps most importantly in terms of practical decision making—even those whom the Government call "economic migrants" have their own reasons for fleeing. I do not believe that cash payments are, in the grand design of things—in Kosovo, Somalia or Afghanistan—the significant incentive for unfounded applications. However, I believe that cash payments may do much to give those who come to this country as asylum seekers just a little dignity.
  Therefore, I believe that some of the measures enshrined in the Bill may have little effect on the number of applicants with which we must deal and will merely ensure that we treat applicants—including those whose claims of persecution and fear of persecution are later upheld—less humanely upon their arrival. In short, we may achieve firmness at the expense of fairness.
  I have chosen to keep to the general principles. I understand fully the grave necessity of introducing a Bill in order to tackle the appalling legacy left us. I agree that we must be fair, fast and firm. I will support the Bill tonight because it is imperative that we progress legislation to deal with the case backlog that we have inherited and because much of the legislation is greatly needed and very good. However, I fear that, in this Bill, we may not achieve all that we endeavour to achieve. I know that we have fallen well short of the ideals that I hold dear and that one far-off day we may be brave enough to attempt to get closer to achieving them.
  Many hon. Members could describe their core political beliefs in two phrases: "I am my brother's keeper" and "I do not pass by on the other side". My right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill and opened the debate said just

  99
  the other day that we cannot become a "walk-on by society". I believe that is an enduring truth that has a resonance which is greater than merely asking people to do what they must in order to help tackle certain crimes. It calls for humanity, caring and compassion on a much larger scale, running through all aspects of our associations with each other, within this nation and across the globe.
  That truth lies behind the entreaties that could tackle the causes of asylum seeking, including economic migration. When the least of our brothers and sisters are hungry, we should give them something to eat. When they are thirsty, we should give them something to drink. When they are in need of clothes, we should give them something to wear. We are told what we should do when asylum is sought—in principle, at least. When the least of our brothers and sisters are strangers, we should invite them in. It is a great pity that the remaining entreaty from the same text is most relevant today: when they are in prison, we should go and visit them.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am glad to make a brief contribution to tonight's debate because, due to other commitments, I do not expect that I shall serve on the Special Standing Committee that will consider the legislation. I shall concentrate tonight on two or three issues.
  The number of asylum applications has undoubtedly increased since this Government came to power. There were 46,000 applications for political asylum in 1998 compared with 35,000 in 1997. In addition, those 46,000 applicants had 12,000 dependants. The total number of applicants in 1998 was the highest on record, and there is no sign that the influx of asylum seekers will abate.
  Fiona Mactaggart rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but the debate is time limited. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must continue.
  There were 14,400 applications for asylum in the last quarter of 1998 compared with 8,455 in the last quarter of 1997. I was interested to hear several hon. Members—particularly those from the Government side—refer to their constituency postbags and the large proportion of applications that they receive that they believe to be bogus. That is clearly a matter of great concern to all our constituents. I echo the comments made on both sides of the House about the unscrupulous immigration advisers with whom this Bill seeks to deal, in part.
  In their explanatory notes to the Bill, the Government spell out the perceived financial effects of the legislation. I have some queries about those suggested effects. I believe that many of the Government's comments in the explanatory notes are in doubt, particularly in light of the continuing increase in the number of asylum seekers that I have cited. The Government suggest that the costs and savings that they have described depend on a range of assumptions
  "many of which cannot easily be quantified. For these reasons the figures given are estimates only."
  100
  I must be fair to the Government and point out that latter sentence. The explanatory notes continue:
  "All costs are full year costs and are given at current prices."
  The Government state:
  "Taken as a whole the Bill is intended to reduce the costs of the immigration and asylum system. It is expected therefore that this Bill will produce savings, in particular on the support costs for asylum seekers."
  In part I, the Government refer to the financial effects of charging for applications for extensions of stay or duplicate endorsements, and state:
  "the levying of fees could reduce public expenditure by £15 million or more annually."
  They say that this will depend
  "on the number of applications made within the chargeable categories".
  Under part II, "Carriers' Liability", the Government say that the operation of the new civil penalty regime will be met from existing resources. They state:
  "On the basis of 18,000 clandestines detected in 1998, the penalties raised could amount to a maximum of about £16 million a year. The actual amount raised is likely to be substantially lower as a result of the deterrent effect of the penalty and the safeguards which will mean that a penalty is not owed in all cases."
  I shall turn in a moment to the grave concerns expressed by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association and their members about the Bill's provisions regarding carriers' liability.
  When it comes to the extra costs involved in the equation, the Government state:
  "It is estimated that the maximum cost of providing automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees will be around £3 million. Some initial training for magistrates involved in this work is also likely to be needed."
  The Government do not cost the latter provision. I suggest that more than "initial training" will be necessary. It is likely that much training will be needed in connection with the new proposals. The cost of that may have been underestimated. From my experience in the courts, I suspect that the cost of providing automatic bail hearings could be great.
  We then turn to the Government's estimated costs of the comprehensive right of appeal. The Government state:
  "It is anticipated that the new system of immigration and asylum appeals will yield savings by compressing issues presently spread over a number of appeal rights into a single appeal hearing. Other procedural changes designed to enable more cases, particularly at Tribunal level, to be dealt with on the papers and to discourage meritless appeals should also produce savings."
  I am very sceptical about that. I suspect that there will be substantial increases in costs as a result of the additional appeals, and the Government concede:
  "On the other hand, there may be additional appeals arising from claims made under the European Convention on Human Rights."
  My experience in the courts leads me to suggest that any case that goes to Europe, especially under the European convention on human rights, becomes very expensive. The Government's suggestion—under part IV of the notes, which is entitled "Appeals"—that
  "overall, the changes could produce savings of up to £3.8 million a year compared with the current system"
  is wildly optimistic. Indeed, I suggest that the appeals system will lead to yet a further cost to the taxpayer.

  101
  On visitor appeals, the Government suggest that the net additional cost, which they concede, will be
  "of the order of £0.4 million."
  I suspect that they have set it out that way because it sounds smaller. Every other estimate is set out in hundreds of thousands of pounds, but this one is set out as £0.4 million. Once again, the visitor appeals cost estimate is a wild underestimate, and I suspect that the cost to the taxpayer will be a great deal more.
  Under the heading "Immigration Appellate Authorities", the Government suggest that there will be a saving of £350,000 as a result of the removal of the lay members from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I am rather surprised that the Government have done that; nevertheless, they suggest that a small saving will be made.
  Under the heading "Immigration advisers and immigration service providers", the Government suggest that the scheme will be self-financing, but add:
  "A Non-Departmental Public Body will be created to regulate immigration advisers, headed by a Commissioner, a Deputy and an administrative team. The cost of the NDPB, including investigating complaints, and an appeals mechanism will be met from fee income. It is not expected that the scheme will lead to any additional public expenditure."
  It would be miraculous if a new quango did not involve any net cost. I suspect that in the years to come—I shall be watching with great interest—we shall find that the NDPB will become a new bureaucratic empire, which will be extremely costly to the public purse.
  Under part VI, "Support for asylum seekers", there will be a new asylum seeker support budget managed by the Home Office
  "On the basis that the new support scheme will be a disincentive to economic migrants who do not have a well founded fear of persecution".
  The Government are suggesting a reducing budget—£350 million for 1999–2000, £300 million for 2000–2001, and £250 million for 2001–02. The notes continue:
  "This was based on estimated costs; it compared with spending of about £400 million"—
  Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, we are under a time pressure; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am trying to keep my remarks brief because of the limited time.
  The notes state that the Government's reducing budget
  "compared with spending of about £400 million a year when the Government announced its immigration and asylum strategy in July 1998, which would have increased to £800 million by 2002 if remedial action had not been taken."
  We now come to the most crucial words of all:
  "Actual spend will depend on a number of factors such as the number of asylum claims and the speed with which they can be handled. These cost estimates may be revised in due course."
  I am absolutely certain that they will be revised in due course, because I suspect that the Bill will lead to huge increases in the cost to the public purse. Conservative Members will be watching that with great care.
  Having dealt with financial concerns, we come to concerns about natural justice, particularly those of people involved in the road haulage industry. I am certainly
  102
  worried by what I am told by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association on behalf of their members, some of whom are my constituents.
  The FTA and the RHA point out that the primary reason that illegal immigrants target the UK as their final destination is that our welfare and benefit system is particularly attractive. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that there is nothing immoral in being an economic migrant and seeking to better oneself. We can all agree with that, but I repeatedly hear concerns from my constituents about the people who wish to take advantage of our benefit system and have no genuine fear of persecution but simply come here in order to scrounge off the welfare state.
  The FTA and the RHA state that the chances of illegal immigrants being detected by the authorities are very small. Statistics show that more than 90 per cent. of the illegal immigrants detected in vehicles are detained as a result of voluntary action by the driver or operator of a vehicle; only 3 per cent. are detected by foreign authorities and a further 3 per cent. by UK authorities.
  As those two organisations say, the Bill contains no commitment from the Government to encourage any greater co-operation from foreign port authorities to improve security and detection in and around ports—there is not even a commitment to work in tandem with our European partners in France and their port authorities. Also, there is no commitment to increase enforcement activity in the United Kingdom to improve detection rates. Innocent drivers who subsequently discover illegal immigrants aboard their vehicles will now have no incentive to report them to the authorities as so many of them currently do.
  The FTA and RHA emphasise the important point that once detected, very few illegal immigrants are deported. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and others pointed out that the prospect of a substantial amnesty being granted to many of those who have sought asylum over the past few years with no proper claim will increase the temptation for those without a legitimate claim nevertheless to seek asylum in Britain.
  The FTA and the RHA believe that the Government are using drivers and operators of commercial vehicles as scapegoats, rather than introducing measures to tackle the problem directly. It was a matter of great concern that in the House on Monday 15 February the Minister stated:
  "Lorry drivers are neglecting to check their loads. It is difficult to resist the idea that most drivers are either culpable, because they accept bribes, or, at best, negligent, because they do not check their loads."—[Official Report, 15 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 592.]
  It is fortunate that the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege when he made that statement in the House. Had he suggested outside the House that most lorry drivers were accepting bribes or were negligent, I expect that he would have faced action. One remembers a former Conservative Minister who got into terrible trouble for referring to "most"—in her case, most egg producers. Much embarrassment was caused by that.
  On the most recent occasion, the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege, but he subsequently seems to have accepted that drivers who can demonstrate that they have checked their loads, yet are still unknowingly carrying illegal immigrants, should be provided with some means of defence against the proposed fines. Sadly, the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards.

  103
  The FTA and RHA suggest various amendments. Having considered them, I believe those are sensible proposals. In particular, the organisations suggest deleting clause 20(3)(c) in order to ensure that fair and reasonably achievable defence is available where carriers can demonstrate due diligence. They also suggest that the Secretary of State's commitment to a linked code of practice should be confirmed before any clauses enacting penalties are brought into force.
  The FTA and RHA further suggest that there should be an automatic defence where there has been voluntary action by the driver or operator leading to the apprehension of illegal immigrants. Fairness requires that. It is also proposed that there should be provision for compensation where the detention of a vehicle is subsequently determined to be ill-founded. That is particularly important because so many hauliers are small family firms, which may have no more than one, two or three vehicles. The survival of the firm might depend on such compensation.
  The FTA and RHA believe that there should be a quickly accessible appeal procedure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.38 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: The Bill is designed to deliver Labour's commitment to a firmer, faster and fairer immigration system. If one examines the Government's record so far, it is clear that there has been progress in making the immigration system fairer, with the abolition of the primary purpose rule, the introduction of the right of appeal for people facing deportation on national security grounds, the current commitment to radical action to settle the status of people whose asylum claims have been in limbo for more than seven years, and the opening up of the instructions to immigration officers, which for years before had been secret.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to rest on those laurels. The system is still extremely unfair. It is so concerned to exclude the unqualified that the rights of those who are qualified to remain can be sacrificed. In common humanity, we should accept a fundamental truth—that it is worse wrongly to refuse a genuine applicant than to admit one who is not entitled to enter under the rules.
  What is the consequence of pretending that the opposite is true? It is to say to the racists who have constantly clamoured for new restrictions that their demands were justified. It implies that the public interest rests only in restricting access to Britain.
  The Bill aims to be fairer by being faster. That is a concept to which I could sign up. I have always believed that the delays that have characterised the system for more than 30 years are oppressive to the genuine applicants who want to join their family or who are frightened victims of oppression overseas.
  Delays create cynicism and unscrupulous advice. Government sound and fury, which we have heard for so many years, rings hollow when it has been blunted by delays that advantage only the person whose desire is to string out his or her stay in Britain.
  104
  If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary examines previous reforms, he will find that it was claimed that they would lead to speedier decisions. In fact, they did not. Despite the claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 would lead to decisions being made within three months, by 1996, the delay had reached 19 months. Now, asylum claims made before 1993 have taken an average of about seven years to decide. More recent applications have been taking 20 months. That was the position in December.
  These delays are coupled with delays overseas. I saw recently one of my constituents who had applied for her husband to join her in July 1996. There has still not been a decision.
  A crucial way in which the Bill is designed to speed up the process is by consolidating appeal rights. There is now a consensus that it is time to end duplicate appeals. I am concerned that the consolidation may not deliver what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised us in a letter of 9 February, which was
  "a single, comprehensive appeal which would ensure that all the factors in a case are considered fairly and quickly."
  The White Paper points out that in many cases, compassionate circumstances, especially those concerning children, come to the fore only at too late a stage. I suggest that those circumstances should be able to be considered at an earlier stage, and should be considered in all appeals. Under paragraph 364 of the present immigration rules, the Secretary of State must take into account on deportation all relevant factors known to him, including age, length of residence in the United Kingdom, strength of connections with the UK, personal history including character, conduct and employment record, domestic circumstances, criminal record, compassionate circumstances and any representations received on a person's behalf. It seems that if a comprehensive appeal was available, much of the business that we as Members are constantly asked to undertake would be unnecessary and that the real circumstances of the whole of a person's life could be taken into account on appeal.
  I am concerned, however, that people who currently have the appeal that I have described available to them will have it taken from them in the interests of speeding up the system. That seems utterly illogical. This particular right of appeal was exercised by fewer than 900 people in 1997—some successfully. That is a small number of people when set against the 35,000 who exercised the right generally.
  When the previous Government limited the right of appeal to those who had been in the United Kingdom for seven years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), now Secretary of State for Wales, said:
  "The decision to take away the right of an intended deportee to challenge the decision to deport him or her puts limitless power into the hands of the Executive. It poses such a serious threat to fair and just immigration control, a claimed objective of the Government in the implementation of their policy in this regard, that the whole clause should be removed.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 January 1988; c. 529.]
  I am not in the habit of quoting Ministers and setting history against them because often it is not exactly relevant to do so. However, in this instance it is absolutely relevant. We are doing what we condemned the Opposition for doing when they were in power—and

  105
  we are doing it worse. I believe that this will have the unintended consequence of causing people to make a claim for asylum to which they are not entitled because that is the only way of their having any prospect of getting the circumstances of their case considered. As a result of clause 16, those people will face an extra risk of criminal prosecution. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he is able to assure me that it is not intended to use clause 16 routinely in that way.
  There are other provisions in the Bill that might speed things up. For example, there are proposed new powers to give leave overseas. I am concerned that the 58 separate powers that the Home Secretary reserves to himself, or the Lord Chancellor, may not always be used as fairly as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish. It is the job of Back-Bench Members to ensure that there is legislation that is proof against any Home Secretary. It is important that we know exactly how it is intended to implement the provisions.
  The key to speeding things up is the administration of control. I have said in interventions that I believe that the previous Government were grotesquely negligent in the way that they allowed the computerisation of the administration of control to develop. The aim was to create a paperless system, to start in September 1997. In desperation, the Home Office has, without fully evaluating its pilot scheme, rolled out the new paperless system—using paper.
  The staff have moved to new offices, there are not enough chairs for everyone employed there to sit down, the people who were employed to carry the paper around are no longer employed and about 16,000 pieces of mail are unopened. Some of that mail is trapped in a basement, which people cannot get into because of fumes, and the whole system is grinding to a halt.
  I went to Croydon on Friday to speak not to the managers of the system, but to the people who work in it day to day. Their accounts of how the present system is working are hair raising and their morale is as low as it possibly can be. I accept that the future plans, using a flatter structure, could, in the end, produce better administration, but it is clear that, at present, the information technology is unable to support them. What seems to be a deliberate strategy of not enabling people to focus on their areas of expertise will, in the short term, produce greater delays in decision making. An asylum worker who, perhaps, has experience of handling claims from the Indian sub-continent, and who is now working on claims from former Yugoslavia, will take longer to decide those cases than he would to decide others.
  There is chaos and, in anticipation of the brave new computerised world, during the period of growing queues, there have been staff cuts. The 1997 annual report of the immigration and nationality directorate said that the increase in the delay in decisions about after-entry cases had gone up to 99 days, on average, from 88 days in 1995 because of the reductions in caseworking staff. Now we have the cheek to propose charges for that standard of administration.
  I am afraid that I do not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that charges would deliver a more efficient system. We currently charge for the administration of nationality, but it takes 21 months to decide a naturalization
  106
  application—applications on which the Home Office nationality directorate made about £1.8 million in profit in 1997.
  Faster administration is essential if the provisions are not to be draconian. Expecting an asylum seeker to live in a cashless society may be humane for a short time, but it cannot be reasonable if that is extended, even to the 20-month delay that current applications are experiencing.
  Many of my hon. Friends have referred to ways in which the Bill will make the system fairer. Some ways will not achieve enough. For example, the provision creating a bail hearing for those who are detained sounds positive, but it is less stringent than bail provisions in criminal law, where people may pose a real threat to others if they reoffend. That provision is coupled with the new power, in clause 116, for immigration officers to detain someone whom they suspect may have removal directions made against him.
  Already, this is the only area of law where people who are not suspected of a criminal offence, or of being a threat to others, can be detained. There is no provision, for example, to prevent the detention of children. Again, the interests of the state in detaining people—usually, I am afraid, for the unacceptable reason of a desire to deter others—are taking precedence over the concerns for the liberty of the person.
  I welcome some of the bits of the Bill that are designed to make provisions firmer—for example, action against lorry drivers—but the scale of the new powers for immigration officers is perturbing, including powers to enter and search premises, and to arrest people without a warrant. An immigration officer exercising any of his powers may, if necessary, use reasonable force.
  Those powers are potentially dangerous in a service without the extensive training of the police and without the experience, which the police have, of the consequences in other areas of policy of racially administered justice. The immigration service, unlike the police, is not overseen by an independent complaints body. I hope that that will be considered in Committee.
  The White Paper noted that past piecemeal efforts at reform had been too complex; solutions in one area had created new problems in another. I fear that the Bill risks suffering from that problem, too. Bolted on to the Immigration Act 1971, which deliberately advantaged white people with ancestral connections to the United Kingdom at the expense of family reunion for people whose home is here, the Bill does not deliver the root and branch reform that we need.
  I hope that the Home Secretary's courageous and correct decision to subject this Bill to the Special Standing Committee procedure will uncover the problems that I have only been able to hint at. I hope that it will give us a chance to see the draft regulations and codes in the 58 separate areas where powers are reserved to the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, and that it will enable the Bill, which was devised with the best of intentions, to deliver what we promised: a system that is truly faster, truly firmer and above all, really fairer.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and I once lived opposite each other in

  107
  Hampstead. It is a pleasure to be linked with her again due to the chronological and consecutive order in which we have spoken in the debate. I am aiming to speak for seven minutes to let other hon. Members in.
  I left the previous Government in July 1994, and have had a detailed involvement in the matters of today's debate since the autumn of 1995, when I wrote to the then Leader of the House saying that I feared a degree of interdepartmental incoherence was attending the then Government's review of benefits for asylum seekers. I spoke in the debate on Second Reading of the predecessor to this Bill in December 1995, and in the 90-minute debate on the accompanying social security orders in January 1996. I spoke in the 90-minute Adjournment debate on this subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in mid-1996.
  In this Parliament, I have not asked the Minister who will reply to the debate to invest his time in meetings on individual constituency cases. As he will remember, however, I brought a generic issue in my constituency to his and the Home Secretary's attention. I shall not dwell on the detail, for we were all agreed at the meeting that we would make more progress on solving the issue if we did not raise its profile. I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive and imaginative way in which we were received, and to members of his private office for the way in which they have coped with the individual emergency cases that I have loaded on them.
  I remarked in another debate that I am one of the two remaining inner-city Conservative MPs in the entire country. It will come as a surprise to some that in both the recent Economic and Social Research Council classifications—the first for the period 1981–92, and the second for 1991–95, both of which were calculated in accordance with current constituency boundaries—my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster came in the top 50 out of the country's 659 constituencies by all the standard household indices of poverty. The top 50 are the poorest.
  The problem for local authorities, which I helped to identify in 1995–96, is significantly assuaged by the Bill, but I have looked at the figures in Greater London for supported asylum seekers broken down by authorities for November 1996 and for January 1998, and in aggregate, but not broken down by authorities, for this very month. The Minister will not need me to tell him of the inexorable rise in those figures—it has been formidable. Westminster's precise place in the league table has fluctuated, but it has been consistently near the top.
  In an era when Westminster is periodically vilified—as was exemplified by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who intervened on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and asked him to condemn Westminster practice, which my hon. Friend admirably parried—I am happy to report to the House that a dozen or so London authorities are coming together in a London regional consortium for commissioning and contracting good quality services outside London. I am quietly proud that, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West, Westminster is both housing and managing that consortium.
  108
  I remark drily that far fewer than a dozen London local authorities are controlled by the Conservative party, and the fact that Westminster is managing the consortium is an echo of the golden opinions won in this field by the director of social services for Westminster, not least from Mr. Nick Hardwick, the chief executive of the Refugee Council.
  I have three questions to ask the Minister. First, I understand the Bill's provisions for dispersal. However, once a determination is made, who will have a statutory duty? If people come back to London and have no other local connection established, what will the arrangements be? Secondly, with no local authority powers or duties relating to families with children who are awaiting a decision, what will happen once a family application has failed? We shall need clear arrangements between the final decision and the act of leaving the country. Thirdly, how will unaccompanied young children from abroad be dealt with after 1 April 1999? Numbers continue to grow, including the number of young people. The Greater London figure this month is three times the size of the figure in November 1996, and that relates not least to eastern Europe. Dispersal is not considered to be a serious option at this stage. Certain questions hang in the air.
  Those questions are generic, but I have a personal query that relates to individual constituency cases. All hon. Members representing urban constituencies will have experience of asylum seekers who want a decision from us to discover and advance their places in the various queues. I realise that such requests slow down the overall procedure, but I have not succeeded in persuading either Lunar house or Liverpool to explain their general queueing principles on the basis of territory, so that I can save them the bother of my questions by essaying an approximate answer to constituents myself.
  I am generally supportive of the Bill. Certain Labour Members have devoted some of their respective quarters of an hour to attacking the last Government. As one who deals with my fair share of cases, in the last Parliament I calculated that, for every five letters that I received from electors in my constituency, I received a further two from constituents who were resident there, but who were not on the electoral register. I personally hope that the Government will meet the targets that they have set themselves for 2001, and I hope, for their sake, that they have not created a rod for their own back. Those of us who support the Bill in general will mark their progress closely against those targets.
  Notwithstanding my general approval, I recognise the various uneases expressed by at least eight well-informed outside bodies that have briefed all of us on the Bill. Every hon. Member has received that briefing, and I dare say the Government have as well. In that context, I am delighted that a Special Standing Committee will be set up to deal with the issues that have been raised. The uneases stir a resonance with me in the comparable field of homelessness. As the owner-occupied element in the housing stock has increased, our human concern for those who are not in owner-occupied accommodation has gradually receded, not least our concern for the homeless. If the Bill improves the overall situation in the field that it addresses, it will place a particular responsibility on those of us who take an interest in such matters to ensure that we do not lose sight of the genuinely disadvantaged in the general euphoria.

  109
  I have one last word to say, about an earlier exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend why he was worried about the possibility that those who had failed every legal test would go to ground, and why he needed to know how many such people there were. I think that my hon. Friend's question was important. Our nation is a great one for fairness, which is one of the pleasures of living here. Those who fail all the legal tests but still stay are cheating the system, and damage the wicket for the law abiding, while generating domestic and indigenous anger with asylum seekers at large. My hon. Friend's question was reasonable, and the Government must give an answer if they are to sustain their overall policy stance.
  I fear that I have taken eight minutes. Finally, let me say that I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the 50 or so passages in the Bill that envisage secondary legislation. I hope that the outline of such legislation will be available to the Special Standing Committee. I also hope that the parts of the Bill that the Home Secretary has promised to amend will include clause 74(7)—unless the Minister's winding-up speech can rise to an imaginative parsing of the existing, and incomprehensible, words.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Marsha Singh: During the debate, it has been established beyond doubt that there is an urgent need for reform and modernisation of our immigration and asylum system. The last Government presided over a system of huge backlogs, delays and widespread abuse. Even after secretly writing off 26,000 people from the backlog, by the end of 1996 they still presided over a backlog of 55,000 unresolved cases, which have fallen into the lap of the Labour Government. That is unacceptable and the Government are now attempting to modernise that system. They have already moved on the primary purpose rule, abolishing it as soon as they came to power.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Singh: No. I have only a few minutes.
  That rule was blatantly unfair and unjust and it divided many families.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to a fairer, faster and firmer system, but the crucial word is "fairer." No one believes that any of the Bills on immigration or asylum that were passed by the previous Government were fair. In fact, among minority ethnic communities and immigration professionals the belief is widespread that the legislation on immigration that was passed by the previous Administration during their 18 years in power was racist. There is no doubt that in that atmosphere, and with those beliefs, parts of the immigration service have been operating a policy of institutional racism—something which we will hear a great deal about during the rest of the week.
  It is my experience that during debates on immigration and asylum, the flames of prejudice are fanned against not just asylum seekers and economic migrants, but British communities of different backgrounds that are lawfully
  110
  settled here. That is why sensitivity is paramount when we debate immigration and asylum in the House. I can speak with authority on what happens at grass roots level when those matters are debated insensitively and intemperately.
  Genuine asylum seekers flee their homelands not for fun, but because of persecution, violence and repression. Again, I will not accept the notion that economic migrants should be vilified, demonised, or seen as some sort of disease infecting the western world. Economic migration has been part of human history for thousands of years.
  It ill behoves us in the west to vilify and demonise economic migrants because Europeans have been engaged in economic migration for centuries; they have certainly been engaged in it over the past 200 or 300 years. I mention just a few of the countries to which they have gone: South Africa, Zimbabwe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The list could go on, but do we ever talk about Europeans as economic migrants? No. Unfortunately, in this country, it is a term that goes with colour—black or Asian people. I will not accept that. We should learn to accept that Europeans have also been part of economic migration over the years.
  The modern counterparts of those European economic migrants seek only to flee the modern poverty and wretched economic conditions that have been inflicted on them through no fault of their own. The long-term answers to their problems lie not in ever stricter immigration control by western countries, but in the eradication of poverty in developing countries.
  The sooner that the west collectively undertakes to cancel third world debt, the better. I welcome the action to deal with the matter that has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, but we have to make ever more progress on it. Ultimately, affluence and security in developing countries are the answers to economic migration.
  I welcome many of the Bill's provisions. Many of my constituents will welcome the right of appeal for visitors, and the fact that that right can be exercised quickly. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said how their constituents, too, will welcome that right. I have had many constituency cases in which relatives of my constituents have wanted to attend family occasions, but were refused permission to do so and did not have a right of appeal. They will very much welcome the provision.
  Many of my constituents will welcome the pilot scheme on bonds. Although I realise that the provision is causing some controversy—about its potential effects on poor and rich people, and about the countries in which it will operate—one after another many of my constituents have told me, "My relatives have been refused entry, but we will give you any guarantee you want." What am I to say to them—that no system of bonds or other security or guarantee has been enshrined in legislation? The provision will be warmly and widely accepted by my constituents as it will enable their relatives to come to the United Kingdom for important family occasions.
  The provisions on automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees will be widely welcomed, as I welcome them now. Placing management and operation of immigration detention centres on a statutory basis also will be welcomed.

  111
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the provisions on licensing immigration advisers and told their horror stories. I shall not take up the House's time with my similar horror stories. However, my constituents who have been ripped off—or who are likely to be ripped off in future—will warmly welcome the provisions.
  The Bill contains much that should be welcomed both by the House and by our constituents. However, my hon. Friends have also mentioned some concerns, some of which I share. I am concerned that the Bill contains no provisions for early identification of those who have suffered torture or to prevent detention of those who have suffered torture. Such provisions are crucial. We do not want to throw into detention—or prison—the survivors and victims of torture. Doing so would be inhumane and a retrograde step. I should welcome hearing the Minister's thoughts on the point.
  The Bill contains no provision for preventing detention of children. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that matter, too. We cannot be a society that throws children who are asylum seekers into detention centres.
  I also wonder—I have not yet made up my mind on the matter—whether extension of the measures on carriers' liabilities will prevent genuine asylum seekers from reaching the United Kingdom. It is precisely genuine asylum seekers who may have the greatest difficulty in obtaining genuine documents, or any documents. I think that bogus applicants are more likely to have documents that are probably fraudulent. I should welcome the Minister's comments also on that matter.
  My greatest concern about the Bill is its provisions on the welfare of children and on stopping cash payments. The Bill intends that support should be withheld from families and their children until they
  "appear … to be either destitute or to be likely to become destitute".
  That is not good enough for the welfare of children. It sounds like the "Bear Necessities" policy from "The Jungle Book".
  I shall finish now because I am under time pressure. I should have liked to have raised some other issues. This is a complex Bill, which will have a profound impact on the lives of adults and children. I trust that Ministers will listen to the genuine concerns that are raised and will proceed with caution.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: When contributing to this debate on such a sensitive area of public policy, it is worth reminding the House of the important words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who said that the Conservative party would not
  "play race at any time, in any way, on any occasion or upon any provocation."—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 38.]
  It is important to underline that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend spoke for responsible politicians on both sides of the House and outside. Those words are underscored by the joint declaration, organised under the auspices of the Refugee Council and the Commission for Racial Equality, which said that good practice in the debate
  112
  would be to eschew any language that could lead to the generation of hostility towards minority groups who are affected by the Bill. We all agree on that.
  It is also common ground that anyone who satisfies the definition of a refugee in the 1951 United Nations convention must be granted asylum in this country if there would be any threat to their freedom or life from being returned to a country because of their nationality, their race, their religion, their membership of a particular social group or their political opinions. The common ground does not stop there. There is some common ground on the measures that the Conservatives passed—the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and the two asylum and immigration Acts in 1993 and 1996.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am under time pressure.
  The existence of that common ground is proved by the fact that nowhere in the Bill is there an attempt to repeal the central architecture and main provisions of those Acts. The Government could have done that if some of those measures were as bad as has been suggested by some Labour Members. That leads me to the conclusion that the Government approve of the sensible measures in our legislation. We welcome their belated conversion to what we were trying to achieve.
  However, I have some grave concerns about the detail of the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by many specialist and well-informed interest groups outside the House. I shall come to them presently.
  The number of asylum applications in 1998 was at an all-time high—more than 46,000—and it falls to the Government to tackle the problem. Of the 31,570 cases determined in 1998, 5,300-odd were successful. The rest were deemed not well founded—or bogus, if we must use that often-employed emotive and demotic word. The unfounded claims are the crux of the problem. They are making the system creak and the Government have to do something.
  Another reason why action is necessary is the cost to the public purse. In a debate on a humanitarian issue such as this it may be distasteful to talk about money, but the White Paper drew attention to the cost of asylum seekers in terms of education, processing claims, benefits and so on, which is about £0.5 billion per annum. The figure given by the Immigration Service Union is some four times that. Whatever the figure is, the expense is increasing, as the Home Secretary made clear in the White Paper. Action must be taken because genuine asylum seekers are being prejudiced by a system that is not working. The racketeers and those who knowingly make bogus claims are damaging the interests of genuine refugees.
  In clauses 1 to 3, the Government set a great deal of store by the new mechanisms for granting leave to enter or remain. My understanding is that they are looking towards greater use of information technology and electronic smart cards. We do not know how that will operate in practice and I hope that the Committee will look into it. There is a need to make the system more efficient, but there are still doubts as to how passports will be stamped and how employers will get information to show them that those entering this country have the proper entry clearance.

  113
  The provisions relating to carriers' liability build on Conservative legislation. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to what could be a perverse incentive for lorry drivers not to declare if they discover an illegal immigrant in the back of their lorry once in this country. There will be no incentive for them to declare that to the authorities because they will not want to be whacked with a £2,000 fine. At present, that declaration would be made because there is no fine. These points have been made by the Road Haulage Association and other bodies representing a hard-pressed industry, made up—quite often—of small businesses which do not need extra burdens.
  Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: I am more than happy to do so.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Gale: I am relinquishing my attempt to speak in the debate by intervening. I hope that Labour Members will allow me to do so.
  The asylum seeker that I had in my home for some six months told me not only how he came into the country, but how he and his friends went out and came back again hidden in lorries, such was their ingenuity. Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister has taken on board what he will do to the road haulage industry?
  Mr. Ruffley: I know that the Minister has received extensive representations, which I hope will be considered in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) referred to the proposal for a streamlined, one-stop appeals system, which is to be welcomed. I hope that that will be looked at in Committee. It is common sense for compassionate grounds to be scrutinised within European convention on human rights considerations, as well as other aspects thrown up by the initial interview. At the moment, compassionate considerations are often raised late in the day. They should be raised all at once, and I hope that the matter will be looked at in detail in the interest of efficiency and fairness.
  The Children's Society raised a matter that should give us all pause: the operation of a voucher system and the effect that it could have on children of asylum seekers awaiting determination of their cases. Such a system can lead to racial harassment. Labour Members have observed that people could be treated as second-class citizens. Most importantly, without the ability to pay for goods in cash, it is likely that families will not be able to buy medicines or second-hand clothes for children, who will often outgrow clothes pretty quickly. It is not apparent to me how a voucher system will be fairer to vulnerable dependants of asylum seekers. No doubt that, and the other matters that I have raised, will be discussed in Committee. In a spirit of consensus, we should consider the Bill's defects and ensure that they are rectified.
  9.21 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: It is impossible for the Government to get universal support for immigration and asylum legislation. At the one extreme are the pure libertarians who believe in free markets and capital flows
  114
  and support the steps that the Government are taking to free up further the international flow of money. They say that if markets are to clear, there should be free movement of people and no immigration controls at all.
  At the other extreme are the right-wingers, the racists and people who think that we do too much for refugees and asylum seekers, when in fact 10 other European countries take in proportionately more. Those people say that we should not accommodate one single asylum seeker more. The Government have the difficult task of steering a course between the two extremes.
  I recognise that many people without a genuine case apply for asylum, but I believe that we also turn away many genuine asylum seekers. It is clear that the current system does not work. Not only are there unreasonable delays, but bad decisions are often made. Medical evidence detailing horrific physical abuse has been dismissed; evidence is demanded to a standard that it is impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain; experiences of persecution by genuine asylum seekers are belittled; and refusals of asylum have been based on inaccurate or incomplete information on the political situation in the relevant country.
  There is a need to change attitudes as well as the practices, procedures and legislation governing asylum decisions. I recognise that there are concerns about the number of asylum seekers and about how the pressures can create obligations on society that it finds difficult to fulfil, but there is another side: I am proud of this country's reputation for taking refugees. It is sad that there are so many asylum seekers and refugees who cannot stay where they want to: in their own countries. Because of persecution and all the dictators in the world, they have to come here and to other countries to seek refuge.
  The Commission for Racial Equality is currently touring with an exhibition called "Roots of the Future", which has visited my constituency. It is a marvellous exhibition, showing what refugees have added to this country in culture, business, sport and public service, and how much richer our communities are for having accommodated them over the centuries.
  On some specifics in the Bill, I, too, welcome the regulation of immigration advisers, which is vital; but the tribunals that will hear complaints against immigration advisers, although they can instruct advisers to remit fees, lack further powers. Getting one's fees back following bad guidance is not enough. People who have lost their appeal rights through no fault of their own should have them back. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give those tribunals powers to restore rights to those people who have lost their appeals through bad advice.
  I also welcome the proposal to alter the arrangements for the management and operation of immigration detention centres, to make them more open and accountable. As a county councillor in a previous existence, I represented the area that includes Campsfield house, an immigration detention centre. When I requested information from the previous Government I was told that I could not have it because it was commercially confidential. I could not obtain other information because there was no statutory footing for the operation of such detention centres. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the management and operation of those centres will be placed on a statutory footing.

  115
  There is growing awareness of the existence of racism in some of our public services, especially after the killing of Stephen Lawrence about which we have rightly heard so much recently. We know that there are problems in the police and there is no reason to believe that such attitudes are not also prevalent in the immigration service and companies such as Group 4, which runs the detention centres. Those issues are especially important when we consider clause 104, which will give immigration officers broader powers, such as to arrest without warrant. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on that issue. Anyone who knows about the death of Joy Gardner will know how important it is that proper training, safeguards and accountability are introduced now—and certainly alongside the increased powers for immigration officers.
  The introduction of automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees is long overdue. A study by Amnesty when the previous Government were in power found that detention was used arbitrarily. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his introduction to the Bill that only small numbers are detained, but some 800 people are detained. I have visited people in detention and seen the hundreds who are there—it does not feel like a small number. Each one of those 800 is someone who is in detention because he is in the immigration process, not because he has committed a crime. Because of the delays in the process, many innocent people who have committed no crime are detained for longer than United Kingdom citizens who have committed crimes. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the practice of detention and to ensure that it is used as a last resort and not arbitrarily to detain a proportion of the people whose claims are being heard. There should be a presumption against detention in those cases.
  I hope that the Minister will take note of the recommendation by the inspector of prisons that time standards should be applied to immigration detention. At the moment, there are no time limits on immigration detention, which means that innocent people stay detained for far too long.
  I am concerned by clause 16, which will make it a criminal offence for any deception to be used to try to enter the United Kingdom. In the case of refugees and asylum seekers, that is unreasonable. Sadly, there are many dictatorships still in the world. People who work for democracy in such countries are rarely welcome and they and their families often go into hiding. If they are persecuted, they may need to flee. In such circumstances, they cannot come out of hiding and stroll into the passport office or embassy to ask for official travel documents to come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. That simply does not happen. It is almost impossible for someone who is seeking asylum to get here lawfully. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that clause and find a way to ensure that asylum seekers are not made into criminals because they try to flee persecution.
  My constituents welcome the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance to visit family members. Some of them want their friends to be able to come here too and I hope that in time we will introduce an appeal for them as well.
  116
  Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also consider the introduction of gender guidelines, which have been endorsed by many Members of Parliament and the UNHCR. In this country, the status of women is not yet equal to that of men, but in many other countries women's status is much worse. We need to take that into account when considering the women asylum seekers who are coming here. I hope that the Home Office will adopt the gender guidelines, so that the interests of those women are also protected.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a huge step forward and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will take on board the concerns that have been expressed today. The key will be in the speed with which the claims of asylum seekers are considered in the future, and I look forward to an improved system of managing them.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: This serious subject calls for a sensitive and temperate debate and, generally speaking, we have had such a debate this evening. Hon. Members from all parties have made interesting contributions, and have shown appropriate restraint.
  The powerful contribution from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is worthy of mention. She made some important points about the Bill, and the Special Standing Committee will want to examine some of the questions of detail that she raised, including how the dispersal system will work and the position of children in the new system. She referred to the present state of the Bill, and to the 50 order-making powers that it contains. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), among others.
  I am sure that many hon. Members will share the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who expressed the opinion that, in some parts of the Bill, it is difficult to see what is happening. The Bill clearly needs substantial and detailed scrutiny.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) made a considered and cogent speech, although I note in passing that his view of the role and effects of cash benefits seemed to differ from that of the Home Secretary.
  Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke from his experience of dealing with many constituency cases involving asylum seekers. Clearly, he felt some frustration about the current state of the operation at Lunar house, where matters of immigration and nationality are dealt with. He described it as a shambles, as did the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East quoted interestingly from a letter from a constituent who had been trying to obtain a visa for a person from Croatia. That person had been waiting for between four and eight months. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of having discovered that some of the arrangements at Lunar house included moving boxes around between departments and putting them in garages forbidden to staff because of a

  117
  possible health hazard. I hope that the Minister will address that matter when he replies to the debate, and that he will refrain from saying that it was a Conservative Minister who put the boxes in the garage or declared the health hazard. These matters cause concern to many of our constituents and deserve to be investigated.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about his constituency experience in these matters, and about the need to address the problem of people who give bad advice. He asked that the clause 63 provisions covering immigration advisers should also deal with malpractice by solicitors and members of the legal profession as well as by unqualified people who pass themselves off as advisers.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton made another important point, which was also touched on by some other hon. Members, about the operation of clause 47. He expressed concern that it would enable people who offer immigration advice to institutionalise appeals on human rights grounds. However, the new right of appeal created under clause 47 may gain much wider currency and will need to be examined very carefully. The Bill purports to set up a one-stop shop for appeals, but it also creates a new right of appeal to an asylum support adjudicator: that and other appeal provisions mean that we will have to examine the proposals very carefully.
  We also heard good speeches from several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who brought his undoubted legal expertise and personal experience to bear. He knows a great deal on this matter, having worked on immigration cases in the legal world, and he raised important points of detail with which the Minister will wish to deal.
  In particular, my hon. Friend asked whether Members of Parliament would be among those prevented from giving advice. I understand the Minister to have said that that will not be the case because the Bill's prohibition is restricted to people who give advice for reward. I should be interested to know where in clause 63 or elsewhere in the Bill that prohibition is restricted in that way. My hon. Friend has read the Bill, but he remains worried that MPs will be unable to give advice. Given the experience, of which other hon. Members have told us, of being called on for advice at the last minute, other hon. Members may take a different view, but the Minister should deal with the point.
  My hon. Friend also considered that the Bill contained a series of unwieldy measures bolted together. He noted the sweeping powers that will be given to the Home Secretary, but he also, rightly, appealed to us to take a common-sense approach and not to allow our passions to be inflamed.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made a considered speech that was also based on legal experience. He referred to some of the problems that will arise from the extension of carriers' liability to lorry drivers, as did several hon. Members. That is a serious matter for drivers, owners and those involved in haulage. The Under-Secretary intervened on the point, but I must tell him that there is a difference between, on the one hand, the existing liability on carriers such as airlines, shipping companies and ferries that carry passengers and, on the other, making lorry drivers liable for clandestine entrants who may have infiltrated their vehicles. We must consider carefully whether the Bill will be fair to lorry drivers.
  118
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) spoke powerfully as a south-coast, seaside Member of Parliament. In particular, he told us of the problems faced by Eastbourne and of his concern that the plight of seaside towns could be worsened by the new support arrangements. He was concerned that the Home Office had embarked on its course without knowing even how many asylum seekers already live in places such as Eastbourne. He cited the British Resorts Association, which saw wider problems. He also cited a letter from the Minister, in which he said that, along with major conurbations, suitable accommodation was likely to be found in seaside towns. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to draw attention to the position of his constituency and other seaside towns which face a lot of pressure these days.
  In his very good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) expressed grave and detailed concerns about the extension of carriers' liability to lorry drivers and firms. He asked about the appeals system, expressing some scepticism as to whether the new system would cost less than the existing one. We shall want to go into that important point in detail in Committee to see whether it is true that the new system will cost less and to consider its general practicability. My hon. Friend believes that the new system will mean a big increase in the cost imposed on the public purse.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster spoke of the particular problems of his constituency, raising three interesting questions. His first point was of great interest to London Members, and the Minister will wish to tell us what will happen under the dispersal arrangements if asylum seekers return to London. The arrangements that are made to cover such cases will be of interest to all London Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), made some important points in a good but necessarily short speech. He rightly emphasised the guiding influence on the Opposition—our desire not to use the Bill as a means to play the race card. It is necessary that we look at the legislation in detail and in the light of common sense; there might be differences, but we must not inflame passions or be over-emotional, so we must be careful in our use of language. The issues are sensitive, for good race relations are heavily dependent on strict immigration control, and that part of the system that deals with asylum has been put under immense pressure.
  Anyone wondering how the present situation came into being need only look at the history of the issue in the late 1980s, when, in only a few short years, the number of people seeking asylum rose from 4,000 a year to 40,000 a year. That might not have been properly recognised then by those who now sit on the Government Benches, but now that Labour is in government, they must recognise that fact. As we have heard, the number of applications has again increased substantially, to 46,000 this year; so, too, has the number of outstanding applications. We have to consider carefully the messages that we are sending out and do all that we can to deter those with an unfounded—in some cases, manifestly unfounded—claim from trying to make their application in this country.
  We have to consider the position of lorry drivers. Contrary to some assertions, most lorry drivers, if not the vast majority, are responsible, hard-working and decent people. We need to understand how the regime erected by the legislation will affect our lorry drivers. Last week,

  119
  we applauded the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary about the need for people to take responsibility and to avoid having a walk-on-by society. In that spirit, we have to look at how the Bill will affect lorry drivers, because it appears at first glance that the Bill creates a huge incentive for lorry drivers to walk on by.
  The innocent lorry driver who, on arrival in this country, finds asylum seekers in his lorry, takes a responsible attitude, chooses not to walk on by and reports them to the authorities will, under the legislation, find himself in a difficult position, for the burden will be firmly on his shoulders to prove that he was not in any way responsible for the asylum seekers being in his vehicle. He will face a tough, draconian system of penalties and detention if he fails to do that. All that puts pressure on lorry drivers, who feel that they are being forced to accept a responsibility which should not fall on them. We shall want to examine the details of the Bill from the perspective of the many lorry drivers and owners who work for or own small haulage firms. We must carefully consider the onus that is being laid on them and take into account the fact that they cannot claim compensation if it transpires that a detention was ill-founded.
  The Special Standing Committee will have to examine the asylum support system that is to be established and the important issues of its cost and its practicability. It must also consider that system from the perspective of asylum seekers, with a view to ensuring that they receive humane treatment. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to the risk of racial attacks; we must take that risk into account during our consideration of the Bill and ensure that the Bill is sufficiently flexible to deal with all the circumstances that might arise. As the Bill stands, it is not self-evident that it will be sufficiently flexible.
  We believe that there was a strong case for holding an inquiry before embarking on the legislation. Such an inquiry could have considered all the issues—the strength and management of the immigration service; the scale of the problem; the number of asylum seekers who disappear; and the question of why so many people choose to make false and unfounded applications in this country. That is the background which should have been explored. The Bill is a large one, but in many respects it is a package of piecemeal measures to be bolted on to existing legislation. It does not take the comprehensive approach that is necessary to deal with such a sensitive subject, and it places a considerable burden on public funds.
  We should have preferred that there had been a comprehensive and wide-ranging inquiry to get to the roots of the problem and to address every aspect of it. We will give the Bill detailed examination in Committee because it certainly needs it. However, that is no substitute for an inquiry that we believe would have done justice to the substantial public interest in this issue.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has said, this has been a very good debate. Hon. Members have considered
  120
  the issues—many of which are complex and difficult—and argued many points that will have to be discussed in greater detail during consideration of the Bill. The legislation is the most fundamental review ever of immigration and asylum and is the product of widespread consultation. I assure the House that, in considering the Bill—if the House agrees to the establishment of a Special Standing Committee and during the Standing Committee process—we shall continue to listen carefully and, in constructing this immigration and asylum policy, try to create a consensus regarding how we can produce a system that works.
  In the past, the approach to immigration and asylum has often been ad hoc and piecemeal. We want to create a system that works and the spirit of today's debate has shown that that is possible. Many detailed points were raised during the debate and, in the short time available, I cannot do justice to them all. I hope to be able to deal with many of those points in Standing Committee.
  As the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown) pointed out during the debate, past discussions of immigration have tended to centre on how tough everyone will be on immigrants. There has often appeared to be a racist subtext. I think that all political parties want to move away from that sort of debate, and I hope that the media will hear the message that the House has sent today and refrain from making those sorts of comments.
  We all agree that immigrants have made an enormous contribution to Britain: every area of British life has been enriched by their presence. Looking back over the centuries, I dare say that many hon. Members have an immigrant heritage—and my own is more recent than most. The Government welcome immigrants who are lawfully in this country and who make a contribution to our society. We also welcome genuine visitors. That is one of the reasons why we are introducing an appeal on family visitors visas and why we are piloting the idea of a bond.
  Many British people have relatives living abroad who wish to visit this country—and they should be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the past, some relatives have overstayed in breach of immigration rules. That has produced a certain caution in granting visas at entry clearance, which has created a great deal of heartache for many families—particularly British Asian families. The introduction of an appeal will allow a second eye to examine the facts and, we hope, make for better decisions without compromising our controls.
  In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned that, as many family members wish to visit this country to attend weddings and funerals, it is essential that the appeals be heard quickly. We are seeking to ensure that we can deliver fast appeals—indeed, we hope that appeals on the papers can be heard within a week. That is a specific commitment that we shall try to deliver on during development of this law. I was also asked what the fee is likely to be. It will be about £200 for a hearing on the papers or for consideration of the papers and £400 for a full oral hearing. Successful applicants will have their fees refunded.

  121
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and others welcomed our proposals to crack down on unscrupulous immigration advisers. My right hon. Friend highlighted the way in which unscrupulous advisers in his area have caused tragedy and damaged the cases of many vulnerable people through their often corrupt, and sometimes merely incompetent, advice. I assure my right hon. Friend that our Bill aims to sort out those advisers. It will be a criminal offence to give advice for gain unless one is registered to do so.
  We have also agreed with the Law Society to crack down on incompetent and corrupt solicitors. The Bill contains provisions that enable us to intervene if the Law Society does not act. However, we hope that, under the new relationship that the Law Society has developed with us, we will not be obliged to take over and act ourselves. It has the powers and must now use them to clean up the seedier side of the legal profession.
  The hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Woking and others asked about Members of Parliament. I refer them to clause 61(2)(b), which refers to advice given
  "in the course of a business".
  That ensures that Members of Parliament are able to give advice to their constituents.
  Eight thousand illegal immigrants were brought into Britain in the back of lorries last year. That is why it is necessary to introduce civil penalties. We have discussed with the hauliers' associations the way to develop a system that works. We have listened to their representations, and will continue to do so; but the important point is that all too often lorry drivers have either accepted bribes—hauliers do not dispute that some have done so—or been negligent in checking their lorries. We know that it can be difficult to check, and we are looking at how to develop a system that enables drivers to do so and which ensures that we do not have illegal immigrants being brought into this country in the backs of lorries.
  Mr. Garnier: If the Minister thinks that this is such a lacuna, why does he not introduce a criminal prosecution system rather than a civil penalty system?
  Mr. O'Brien: There can be a criminal prosecution when someone who has the intention of carrying illegal immigrants then carries them. That is already provided for in legislation; the Bill simply toughens the penalties for such criminal acts. One of the difficulties is that lorry drivers can simply say, "We didn't know they were in the back." Unless we search the drivers and find the £2,000 per illegal immigrant that is sometimes paid to those who bring them in deliberately—a minority, I accept—it is difficult to prove that they were aware that the illegal immigrants were in the back. It is necessary to have a system of civil penalties.
  We are creating a system that works. The objective is not to fine lorry drivers or impound their lorries, but to stop illegal immigrants entering this country in the back of lorries and costing the taxpayer millions of pounds. That should be good for the taxpayer and, in the end, lorry drivers will find that they will have fewer illegal immigrants in the back of their lorries, often destroying their cargoes.
  122
  It is the asylum system that has often caused most concern. It is where most mistakes have been made. It can take years to recognise a genuine refugee who is fleeing for his life; it can be years before he can get access to the help that he needs; and it also takes too long to process and remove those who are abusing our asylum system. One of the key ways to sort out the asylum system is by delivering speed to the process, which is what the Bill is intended to do.
  In the past, the asylum debate has been polarised between the hard left, which believed that all immigration control was racist and was often prepared to excuse abuse of the system, and the hard right, which claimed that all asylum seekers were bogus. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that we need to get away from that polarisation and get rid of those inanities. We need to restore integrity to our asylum system.
  The common agenda should concern how to create an asylum system that works—works for the genuine refugee whose claim can be recognised quickly, and for the taxpayer in that it will enable us to identify ineligible claimants and remove them from Britain. The common agenda is efficiency. We have not got it at the moment, and delivering it requires not only the Bill but the wholesale modernisation of the administration of the asylum system and of immigration controls at Croydon.
  The Government do not underestimate the size of the problem that we inherited. We are determined to face up to it, and we will resolve it. That means regulating unscrupulous immigration advisers, tackling the backlog, reducing access to benefits and giving people rights against arbitrary detention. It means creating more capacity for detention and reducing the opportunities for frivolous appeals. We believe that it is possible to create a balance in the immigration and asylum system. We supported the Human Rights Act 1998 and an ethical foreign policy. We can balance those with firm immigration controls. The best way to do that is to create an asylum system that has integrity and efficiency.
  Let me set out how some of the problems in the asylum system developed, because it is important that people understand. The 1951 convention on refugees worked well for 40 years. It had popular support. There were between 2,000 and 4,000 asylum seekers a year, with a couple of thousand dependants.
  In the past decade, that system has often been deliberately undermined. To be fair, the Conservatives did not know at first the scale of the problems—few did. In 1989, the number of applications for asylum, including dependants, went up to 16,800. By 1990, it had increased to 38,200. By 1991, it was 73,400.
  Several things happened at once. There were international crises that produced genuine asylum seekers following the collapse of some of the communist regimes. People came from Bosnia, they come from Kosovo now, and they come from Somalia. Many asylum seekers are indeed genuine.
  What also happened was that racketeers spotted a chance. The immigration doors had closed during the 1970s, but there was a gap—the asylum system. Criminals, racketeers and opportunists moved in to advise people how to make abusive claims. As the number of abusive claims rose, public support for the asylum system fell. Genuine refugees found that public good will was being undermined by the extent of the abuse.

  123
  We can all understand why people flee poverty, but the asylum system does not exist for those seeking economic
  betterment or economic opportunity. It exists for those fleeing persecution—fleeing for their lives. Those who undermine asylum by making abusive claims are to be condemned.
  The aim should be to restore integrity to the asylum system. That means facing up to some tough decisions. Benefits are a magnet for abuse. That is why we will restrict access to them. The best message to deter abuse is for a deported abusive asylum seeker to arrive back home saying, "I tried it on in Britain and they threw me out." We must create a system that delivers quickly and enforces decisions that need to be enforced. We intend to do that.
  The hon. Member for Hallam criticised in particular our proposal for vouchers. He characterised it as punishing all for the behaviour of the abusive. I agree that abusive asylum claimants can be blamed for the need to introduce a tougher regime on support, but genuine refugees come for protection. We will provide it. They come for food. We will provide it. They come for shelter. We will provide it. They do not come for a giro, and we will not provide it.
  The Bill will ensure that genuine asylum seekers will benefit, because we will make speedy decisions on their cases. Few genuine asylum seekers should wait for more than a few weeks on that form of support. Admittedly, abusive asylum seekers will remain until their appeal enables us to remove them. It is tough, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that it certainly is not unfair.
  The Conservatives' call for an independent inquiry is rather bizarre. After 18 years in government and two years in opposition, they still do not have a clue what to do about the shambles that they created in the asylum system. We know what to do. The White Paper set it out clearly. The Bill will change the law to ensure that we implement a system that works.
  The Tories complain that I blame them all too often for the shambles that they created in the asylum system. I do blame them for what they did, and I blame them for what they failed to do. I accept that when the new laws are in place and when we have undertaken the administrative changes and modernised the way in which Croydon and the immigration service operate, we will be responsible for what we created. We are in the process of making sure that we create a system that works.
  Under the present system, 8,000 economic migrants are coming in the back of lorries, and unscrupulous immigration advisers are making fools of the system. We need to make a change. The Government are prepared to make the change necessary. That is what the Bill does. I ask the House to support it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 346.

  Division No. 70]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  124

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Madel, Sir David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clappison, James

  Mates, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Ottaway, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paice, James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Halternprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ruffley, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fallon, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Flight, Howard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Garnier, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Gibb, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gill, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Tredinnick, David

  Greenway, John

  Trend, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Walter, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whittingdale, John

  Hayes, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Horam, John

  Willetts, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wilshire, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Yeo, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Austin, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Barron, Kevin

  125

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Denham, John

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Boateng, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Borrow, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brake, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cox, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  126

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pendry, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kidney, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rapson, Syd

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rendel, David

  Lock, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Love, Andrew

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCabe, Steve

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mallaber, Judy

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  127

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Touhig, Don

  Willis, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Woolas, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wray, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 38.

  Division No. 71]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Best, Harold

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Borrow, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burden, Richard

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caborn, Richard

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim

  Canavan, Dennis

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cann, Jamie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Edwards, Huw

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chaytor, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  128

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Livingstone, Ken

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonnell, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Galloway, George

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacShane, Denis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Hain, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maxton, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hope, Phil

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rapson, Syd

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  129

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roy, Frank

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Salter, Martin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Timms, Stephen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Truswell, Paul

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winnick, David

  Spellar, John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wise, Audrey

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Baker, Norman

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brake, Tom

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Welsh, Andrew

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Willis, Phil

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hancock, Mike

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sir Robert Smith.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(2) (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
  Question agreed to.

  IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Immigration and Asylum Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by virtue of any other Act; and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Question agreed to.

  IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall have effect in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, with the following modifications:

  1. in line 6, leave out the words "four morning" and insert the word "five".

  2. in line 7, leave out the second word "three" and insert the word "four".—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]

  Northern Ireland
  10.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  The order is made under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—the purpose of which, as my predecessor Lord Mayhew said when introducing the Act, is to deal with "how" decommissioning is done. It provides for a limited amnesty that is necessary to enable paramilitary decommissioning to happen, in line with the 1996 report of George Mitchell's international decommissioning body.
  The Act sets the amnesty period at just one year, but provides the power for it to be renewed by order, one year at a time, for up to five years. The order therefore extends the period to 24 February 2000.
  The amnesty is limited in time and subject to annual renewal by the House precisely because it involves suspension of certain parts of normal criminal law. The amnesty provision ensures that anyone engaged in an act of decommissioning is not exposed to prosecution. It also places prohibitions on the evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items. However, it does not mean that either the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Garda will diminish in any way their efforts to find and seize illegal weapons.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating the RUC and the Garda on their successes, including last week's finds of weapons and explosives in Belfast.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Has there been any improvement in the relationship between the decommissioning commission and the RUC, so that the RUC knows when weapons might be moved for decommissioning? I am thinking of the issue that arose when members of the Loyalist Volunteer Force started to move weapons but the RUC arrested them—quite rightly, as they were armed with the weapons and firing them. However, the RUC did not know that the LVF was moving under licence from the decommissioning body.
  May I also ask the Secretary of State now—to avoid having to intervene later in her speech—how far we are able to assess parliamentary bodies' willingness to decommission, especially when a story is going round that IRA weapons have been stolen and we remember that the IRA exercises strict discipline in dealing with those who have stolen its weapons?
  Marjorie Mowlam: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that the relationships are more harmonious. Not only did all sides learn from the LVF decommissioning, but the decommissioning showed that the process works. It is important to note that the process that was established and that the decommissioning body was following worked in the case of LVF.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked also about the weapons that recently were found and recorded by the police. The police recorded
  132
  them as belonging to the Provisional IRA and did not know how long they had been there. It is important to take the issue step by step, as it comes. We must look at it in the round. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will focus on the details. I shall not take my eye off the ball. However, we do not have sufficient evidence on those finds to go any further.
  The finds show the success that the Army and the police are having, together with the Gardai across the border. That is worth registering. The most recent development was not just the discovery of weapons last week, but the arrest of 11 people—six in Northern Ireland and five in the Republic—in relation to the Omagh bomb. They have not been charged yet, but the arrests have been made. That shows the effectiveness of the work of the police on either side of the border.
  For the amnesty provisions to operate, decommissioning must be carried out in accordance with the scheme that the Government brought into force last June. Similar provisions are also in force in the Irish republic.
  The Government's scheme—which is non-statutory—allows weapons to be decommissioned either through the provision of information to the decommissioning commission so it can collect and destroy the arms or by the destruction of the arms by those who possess them. Other options are also open, including handing weapons over to the commission for it to destroy. The essential feature of any method of decommissioning is that it must be properly verifiable.
  In making this renewal order I am particularly conscious of the fact that this year we are in a better position than ever to see the verifiable decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. The reason is the Good Friday agreement. All parties to that agreement 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 accordance with the agreement, the two Governments will take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process. The passing of this order is an essential part of that to continue fulfilling our commitment under the agreement.
  I am also conscious that there continues to be a great deal of scepticism in the House and elsewhere about the prospects for decommissioning taking place. In response, I point to the fact that we have had a beginning—small but significant—to the process with the action taken by the Loyalist Volunteer Force last December. The Government welcomed the LVF action, which showed that decommissioning is politically possible for the groups concerned. It was not an act of surrender—no one was humiliated. It was an act of good faith.
  The LVF's action also showed that the legislation works. We must thank General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the commission for all their important work to facilitate the decommissioning process.
  Nevertheless, the vast bulk of the weapons remains in the hands of the paramilitaries. That is unacceptable. The Government have made it clear to Sinn Fein and to the loyalist parties that decommissioning, though not a precondition, is an obligation under the agreement. It is

  133
  what the people of Northern Ireland—including supporters of republican and loyalist parties—voted for, along with all the other parts of the agreement.
  We are entering a crucial phase in the political process, leading to the point at which powers can be transferred to locally elected politicians and all the other institutional arrangements in the agreement can be brought into being early in March. It is essential that all parties move quickly to fulfil all the commitments that they have made. That means a start to decommissioning, the Executive being set up and early meetings of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State return to the recent findings of IRA weapons in west Belfast? How is the finding of primed weapons remotely consistent with the proposition that the political representatives of paramilitaries are committed exclusively to non-violence and democracy?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman knows that the weapons were those of the IRA, but we need further forensic information before we know of their exact status. The possession of the weapons is a serious offence and anyone guilty will not be covered by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If information emerges, action will be taken. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence. The commitment of the police to seek out all illegally held weapons has been shown, and we should acknowledge our gratitude to the police on both sides of the border for that.
  Decommissioning must take place, the Executive must be put in place and there must be meetings of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council. No one can assume that that will be easy; it never was. Difficult decisions will have to be made, but I have no doubt—the evidence is clear—that the people want these matters tackled, and tackled now.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State morally committed to laying the order annually, irrespective of whether progress is achieved in decommissioning?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I do not understand the inclusion of the word "morally" in the hon. Gentleman's question. The order was introduced in 1996 by my predecessor, and part of its nature is that it is laid every year. The order involves the suspension of parts of the criminal law, and therefore must be introduced every year. We are doing so today up to 24 February 2000, and that will continue for the five years for which the order was introduced. That is the nature of the order. The order deals with questions of the process of decommissioning—it is nothing more than that.
  We will continue to do our part to make sure that all weapons are taken out of commission, whether by the actions of the RUC, the Gardai or the British and Irish Governments. The order is central to those arrangements, and I commend it to the House.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Government have our wholehearted support for the order which, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, renews the amnesty period for a further 12 months under the
  134
  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—not least because, without the order, the decommissioning scheme would become completely moribund and we would be unable to decommission arms, even if we wanted to.
  I join the Secretary of State in her praise for the diligent and impartial efforts of General de Chastelain, the chairman of the independent international commission set up under the decommissioning scheme and reinforced under the Belfast agreement. His is not an enviable position, but he is conducting his role with great skill and patience.
  Decommissioning seems to be the critical issue in Northern Ireland politics at present. It features in debates about the pace and efficacy of prisoner release, and about who has the right to take up Executive posts in the new Northern Ireland Assembly. It is central to discussion and argument in this House, as well as in the Assembly.
  There are only two questions that need answering. First, why is decommissioning so crucial? Secondly, if decommissioning is so important, why has none so far taken place? The answer to the first question—indeed, perhaps the answer to all the questions—lies in the Belfast agreement, paragraph 4 of which stated that parties to the agreement gave their
  "total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues"
  and stated their
  "opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose".
  The agreement is unequivocal on force, covering not only its use but the threat of its use. Threats do not emanate only from statements and posturing. The fact that some parties to the agreement are associated with paramilitary organisations with substantial stocks of arms and explosives—they have made ready use of them in the past—is, in itself, a real and tangible threat. In the absence of any statement from Sinn Fein-IRA or the Progressive Ulster Unionist Party-Ulster Volunteer Force that violence is over for good and that they will never again resort to a military campaign to further their ends, the perception of threat will not go away.
  The agreement is no less explicit about the ways in which arms and explosives are to be taken out of the equation, and the time scale over which that is to be achieved. It says:
  "Participants reiterated their agreement to a Procedural Motion adopted on 24 September 1997 'that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
  It further says:
  "All participants affirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to … use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years".
  No doubt those words were extremely well crafted. There was a commitment to total—I emphasise total—disarmament. The reference is to "all paramilitary organisations", rather than military organisations, so demilitarisation of the British Army and its bases in Northern Ireland does not come into it.
  The words "use any influence" might sound weak at first, but as we have had an acceptance in the House on more than one occasion that Sinn Fein and IRA are one and the same, the use of that phrase becomes clear cut:

  135
  the people involved in the political negotiations are the same people as those in the military organisation. The agreement set up a time scale: decommissioning was to take place within two years.
  Decommissioning is crucial to the setting up of the Executive in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement is clear on that point. It says:
  "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office."
  Violence has been a common occurrence on the streets of Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement. Punishment beatings—we prefer to call them mutilations—have been widely used by the paramilitary groups associated with the political process to control and intimidate whole communities. The Chief Constable has confirmed that on more than one occasion.
  Where is the commitment to non-violence? Only last week, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) focused on that point in a question. Only last week, the RUC found an arms cache. It was confirmed not only that the arms were PIRA weapons but that they were hidden recently, despite the so-called ceasefire that we are supposed to be enjoying.
  Marjorie Mowlam: For the record, the Chief Constable said that the arms were PIRA-related, but there was no ability to put a time scale on them.
  Mr. Moss: I am grateful for that clarification.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Do you accept it?
  Mr. Moss: Yes, of course I accept that important clarification.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood that a time was established, because the police marked the detonators and they could be seen to be from 1998.
  Mr. Moss: We have two conflicting opinions and I am inclined to believe the Secretary of State, who has the latest intelligence reports.
  Mr. Hunter: I encourage my hon. Friend not to give credence to the Secretary of State on that point. Primed weapons were moved into west Belfast, and the Secretary of State will know from her intelligence sources that the Provisional IRA do not move weapons into west Belfast unless they are intended for operational purposes. My hon. Friend should stand fast on that point and not accept the Secretary of State's comments. It is clear that those weapons and ammunition were intended for operational use immediately.
  Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend has made his point. I do not have accurate intelligence reports from the highest source in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has made a statement in the House and I have to believe her. She will have to stand by the comments that she has made to the House. It is as simple as that.
  136
  At another level, how can Sinn Fein-IRA and the PUP-UVF equate non-violence with the holding of weapons and explosives? I am delighted to say that that is now the view of the Irish Taoiseach as well as the Leader of the Opposition in the Dail, Mr. Bruton, who was quoted on 15 January in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the IRA had to disarm if Sinn Fein were to be allowed to take its seats in government. He put it correctly when he said:
  "How long could a coalition in the Dail work if one of the parties in the cabinet had a private army? We hardly expect different standards to apply in Belfast."
  As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, despite the "now he said it, now he didn't" claim and counter-claim, one thing is certain: Bertie Ahern's assertion that there can be no Executive without a start to decommissioning dramatically increased the pressure on the republican movement. His statement that the republican position on decommissioning was "illogical, unfair and unreasonable" produced
  "gloom, concern and puzzlement in the republican camp"—
  to quote one report. From his subsequent clarification, he did that deliberately and consciously. Why should he do that? Various newspaper headlines suggested that he had blown it or lost the plot, or had been too open and helpful in handling the journalist. However, could it be that Mr. Ahern had come to the end of his patience with Sinn Fein-IRA? When he came under pressure from the republican movement, he did not retract. He was courageous in punching home his key message:
  "Decommissioning in one form or another has to happen … it is not compatible with being part of a government—I mean part of an executive—if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning, and that would apply in the North, it would apply in the South."
  Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend has just said what the Secretary of State said—that there needs to be decommissioning and a start to the Executive. The Secretary of State would not give way to me and therefore did not answer the question about the order of events. Does decommissioning come before the start of the Executive? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decommissioning starts before there is any question of Sinn Fein-IRA involvement in an Executive?
  Mr. Moss: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that point in a moment. There is no doubt that the Taoiseach sees no disparity or discrepancy between Sinn Fein's public and private position on decommissioning—it will not do it and it has said that it will not do it. Why else should he confront the issue in that way?
  On the other side of the argument is the First Minister designate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party. He has stated time and again that there is no place for Sinn Fein-IRA representatives on the Executive of the new Assembly without substantial decommissioning. His position is as entrenched as that of Sinn Fein. The only room for manoeuvre, it would seem, lies with the two Governments. Perhaps a third ingredient would be President Clinton's involvement. The party invitations to the St. Patrick's day celebrations in Washington become more significant by the day.
  The Taoiseach, it seems, has made his move. When can we expect the Government's response? The Opposition's line on this issue has been consistent from the start.

  137
  We want the Belfast agreement to be implemented in full. In case there is any doubt, that means that each and every section must be implemented, without cherry picking. The consensus—except among those who retain their arms—is that, in terms of practical politics, decommissioning is an integral part of that implementation.
  After last week's critical vote in the Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) restated our position. He said:
  "Sinn Fein-IRA cannot become Ministers until they have fulfilled their obligations under the agreement to start proper decommissioning of illegally held weapons and end violence in all its forms."
  Mr. William Cash: I hear what my hon. Friend said in respect of a start to decommissioning taking place, and he rightly mentioned that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had called for substantial decommissioning. We know that, from time to time, the Government have a way of talking in terms that appear to be de minimis. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to clarify at what stage decommissioning becomes significant? Even if some decommissioning—or even substantial decommissioning—were to take place, is not the real problem that the threat and the danger to the public would continue to exist if any arms at all are left?
  Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but we are talking about building confidence and about continuing the process begun with the Belfast agreement. We on the Opposition Front Bench have always said that substantial decommissioning should take place but, at the end of the process, we probably would not know whether all the arms had been decommissioned. The fact is that any organisation—in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland as a whole or even in this country—that is serious about terrorism can obtain arms tomorrow, if it wants to. What we are talking about is a full and total commitment to peaceful and democratic means.
  Since last May, the Government have achieved much, and deserve credit for that. They have honoured—some would say more than honoured—their side of the bargain. The Assembly has been established; the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has gained Royal Assent; the commissions on human rights and equality have been set up; the reviews of policing and criminal justice have begun; there has been an accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners, which is now more than half way through; and the prudent normalisation of security measures has proceeded.
  Have the Government been criticised for a lack of willpower and resolve to implement their responsibilities? I have heard no such criticism.
  The Irish Government, too, have faithfully implemented their commitments—so much so that the Taoiseach was moved to say, in his recent interview, that
  "you can't prioritise and bring forward and incrementally do everything and then say we won't even start on the first 0.001 per cent. of this issue".
  By the phrase "this issue", he meant decommissioning.
  Perhaps I should apologise to the House, and to the Taoiseach himself, for quoting him so frequently in this debate, but we all know and believe that what he said is true. He has given courageous leadership on this critical matter: would that we had had similar quotable words of wisdom from our own Government. They have the
  138
  opportunity this evening, in winding up the debate, to tell us unequivocally that they agree with the Taoiseach that there should be no progress towards setting up the Executive of the Assembly until and unless there is a committed start to meaningful decommissioning.
  Nothing could be simpler or more helpful in the overall context. The agreement is 80 per cent. in the process of implementation. I do not believe that there can be any going back. There is no alternative around the corner. The Government should be bold and courageous. They should stand firm on the basic principles of the agreement, and they should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Prime Minister and the Irish Parliament in spelling out reality to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  10.55 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Members for North—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the discovery of an arms cache, saying that the arms were intended for operational purposes. I would have preferred him to have said that they would have been used for terrorist purposes. The people concerned are terrorists. They are not engaged in military operations. Purely and simply, they are brutal terrorists. I was surprised at the language used by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hunter: Quite frankly, that is pathetic. In the context in which I used the word operational, it means the most vile, horrific, murderous terrorist operational activities. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that that was the point I was making.
  Dr. Godman: That intervention was pathetic. Most people who will read the record of the debate will not define "operational" in those terms. The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically pathetic.
  The hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire spoke about the Taoiseach's interview in The Sunday Times. Since the interview, there has been some to-ing and fro-ing over the semantics of what the Taoiseach said. The hon. Gentleman wondered why the Taoiseach said what he did at that time. A number of factors influenced him, one of which was the outrage felt by the people of the Irish Republic about the verdict in the trial of those who murdered Garda McCabe, but who were convicted only of manslaughter. Irish people were especially shocked by the interventions of Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams shortly afterwards on the sentences that the killers received, and on their so-called early release. The overwhelming majority of Irish people would wish those men to serve condign sentences for a horrific murder in the beautiful little village of Adare.
  Mr. David Winnick: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the terrible murder of an Irish police officer. Does he agree that both Governments are equally committed to decommissioning and that the British Government have made their position perfectly clear? However, is it not part of the political scenery that a statement from the Irish Government, particularly given

  139
  the main governing party in the Republic, may be more important to the IRA than a statement from the British Government would be?
  Dr. Godman: As always, my hon. Friend makes good sense. That party can be enormously influential on the thinking of members of Sinn Fein, both north and south of the border.
  Mr. Frank Field: May I add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It is not merely the Taoiseach who has spoken. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) notice that a week earlier, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister made almost the same statement in Australia?
  Dr. Godman: I recall that that was so. I have enormous admiration for the Taoiseach; it is not as if he enjoys the majority that our Government do. We would all agree that he was not responsible for the headline on his interview in The Sunday Times, and that what he said was courageous. I do not think that in subsequent statements, he was trying to go back on what he said. He has behaved with considerable moral and political courage, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done.
  On Friday, accompanied by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I shall meet General de Chastelain in Belfast to discuss what he and his colleagues are doing. They face a formidable task, for they are at the heart of the critical issue of decommissioning, but I put my faith in the general, his colleagues in the two Governments and those others who want peace to be maintained in that dreadfully bedevilled province of Northern Ireland.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: This tends to be a place for simple messages, and it is always a risk to try to move the debate forward. Still, it is a lot less risky than paragliding and these days, I have to get my kicks somehow, so I shall attempt to provide a few insights into what is going through the minds of those who are faced with the expectation of having to decommission.
  It must be recognised that we have made a lot of progress. Sometimes, in our debates about impasses, we forget that we have made breakthroughs in matters on which, even two years ago, we thought it would be impossible to get a result.
  Although today's debate is taking place within the positive context of that progress, we are faced once again with the issue of decommissioning. The whole House, including the Liberal Democrats, will support the renewal of the order, because it represents Parliament's side of the bargain to ensure that the door is always open to enable those who want to decommission to do so. In addition, it puts moral pressure on those individuals to take their side of the bargain seriously.
  It is unfortunate that the Good Friday agreement only sets a date by which decommissioning must have been completed—the two-year deadline—and contains no staging posts within that process. The hon. Member for
  140
  North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has pointed out that many of us believe that there is a moral obligation on the IRA and all paramilitaries to demonstrate that they are serious about meeting the two-year deadline by taking some steps towards decommissioning before that date, but technically, that obligation does not appear in the Good Friday agreement, so when one speaks to those people, they say that they are under no moral obligation whatever to decommission before that date.
  Such assertions conjure up the interesting image of a whole bunch of heavy goods vehicles trundling up the day before the deadline containing all the arms belonging to the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, so enabling them to fulfil their obligations in a dramatic fashion. The difficulty for us is that such a scenario does not seem credible: to us, common sense dictates that there should be signs of the decommissioning process taking place over a period lasting many months.
  I view the order to be renewed tonight as a way of keeping open the possibility of continuing the process that the LVF has demonstrated can be made to work.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is not the problem that, judging by what Sinn Fein and the IRA have said on the subject, it is not a question of their adhering to some legalistic nicety that gives them until some time next year to complete the decommissioning process, but that they have publicly said that they will never decommission?
  Mr. Öpik: I might be an optimist, but I have to say that when I speak directly with those individuals who, I can be pretty sure, represent those organisations, my feeling is that they are saying that they will not decommission now. We could enter into a moot discussion on that point, but I think that we can all agree that, if no decommissioning has taken place in two years' time, that will be an objective outcome: whichever party has failed to decommission will have failed to fulfil its half of the Good Friday agreement, and we are all acutely aware of the consequences of that.
  We are currently considering how we can move forward from an impasse. Basically, one side is unwilling to decommission or to provide any sign at all that the guns will be handed in, while the other side is applying pressure—its case is coherently argued—by saying, "If you don't show a willingness to decommission, we will be entitled to exclude you from the Executive". That leads me to my next point.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning an impasse. There is only an impasse if one group is trying to prevent something from happening. I have listened to the debate, and I believe that there is no will in the House to state that people should not enter government unless they surrender their weapons. That is in stark contrast to the approach of the Irish Government. As I said by way of intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), both the Irish Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said clearly that they do not think that there should be access to government until decommissioning has occurred. Therefore, the Irish Government are creating an impasse, but we are not. We seem to be suggesting that we are being carried along by events and that we might review

  141
  the situation after two years. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making his contribution within a deeply mistaken framework.
  Mr. Öpik: That is what I meant when I mentioned the risk involved. I am providing the perspective—with which I do not have a great deal of sympathy—of many of those who are presenting obstacles to decommissioning.
  Turning to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), individuals who are intimately involved in the peace process have created the expectation that decommissioning must take place at this point in order to provide some confidence that the parties really mean it. Incidentally, that is why I echo the comments of the Irish Prime Minister: he has established a moral expectation that individuals will demonstrate their willingness to decommission. My point is that those who oppose decommissioning respond simply by saying: "Where is the time frame in the Good Friday agreement that we are expected to adhere to?" That is the impasse that I am describing.
  In case there is any doubt, I am not being an apologist for those who refuse to decommission, but I am trying to move beyond the kind of rhetoric—which is so easy to engage in in the House—that says that their views are without basis.
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: I will give way when I have finished making this point. Regardless of how right we believe we are, it does not serve any purpose not even to attempt to understand the opposing point of view. A superficiality creeps into our debates about decommissioning that is caused by our unwillingness to ensure that we understand the opposing arguments and show that we do, whether or not we have chosen to accept them. Those on the other side of the debate sometimes feel that we do not even understand where they are coming from.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Öpik: I will give way to the two hon. Gentlemen and then I must conclude.
  Mr. Barnes: The agreement involves not just the two-year provision. It does not follow that, if one side decommissions the day before the deadline, it will be seen to have fulfilled the agreement. The agreement also comprises a commitment to the democratic process and having foresworn any participation in activities involving arms. Those conditions influence our understanding of how the two-year deadline operates. It makes sense to say that we must see some movement towards decommissioning and that it is reasonable to expect those signs before the Executive is established.
  Mr. Öpik: I now give way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is making a speech, not listening to a series of contributions by others.
  Mr. Öpik: I apologise for my judgment and thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am far too
  142
  generous—it has always been one of my weaknesses. I shall draw my speech to a close and other hon. Members may be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think that we are violently agreeing. The arguments that we are rehearsing across the Chamber are exactly the ones that we must put to those who refuse to decommission. I shall leave the House with one simple point. We need to understand that there is an intransigence based on a kind of logic, which makes sense to those people who refuse to decommission. I do not agree with them; I do not think that it is right for them to act in what I regard as bad faith—
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: I really should not; I need to bring my comments to a close.
  It is not right to fail to act in good faith, and it is wrong not to trust the process; but let us make our position clearer by proving to the people who refuse to decommission that this Chamber understands their logic, but chooses to reject it. Let us say that we understand that they are arguing according to the letter of the Good Friday agreement, but that we feel there is a moral imperative at this point—an imperative felt not only by politicians, but by a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland as well as in the Republic of Ireland and on mainland Britain—for them to show good faith by decommissioning.
  The message that we are sending by renewing the order is that we in this Chamber are acting beyond the simple letter of the Good Friday agreement and are acting in the spirit of reconciliation, trying to open a gateway to make progress. We now expect others to do the same.
  I apologise for being overly generous in accepting too many interventions, but their number and the nature of the debate in the past 10 minutes underline how easy it is to miss the point at our end. They should also be a powerful sign to us of how easy it is for others to miss our point at their end. Our message in renewing the order is simple: "We understand your argument and your logic, but at the moment it is simply not good enough. We need to see more." Everyone here agrees that we need to see more. Most importantly, we are moving beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the agreement and the spirit of the peace that we are trying so hard to build in Northern Ireland.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The renewal of this order is a timely event because decommissioning has certainly been the main issue in political debate in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. If decommissioning does not take place in the forthcoming year—the order is being renewed for another year—I regret to say that the whole political process built on the Belfast agreement will collapse.
  I disagree with the interpretation advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of what is required in the Belfast agreement in respect of decommissioning. I say that as one of the three negotiators for the Ulster Unionist party who was involved for two years in those negotiations and knows exactly how every word of the agreement was carefully chosen.

  143
  I well recall the Tuesday before Good Friday when we had the first draft of the Belfast agreement, which I dismissed out of hand and said that I would not touch with a 40 ft pole, and rightly so. The Prime Minister came to Belfast that evening, and we had continual negotiation for the next three days, culminating in the revised agreement from which, I am glad to say, many things were removed and to which, I am afraid, some things were added. None the less, there had to be compromise, and on the basis of that compromise we have the Belfast agreement.
  Why is the renewal of the order timely? It is timely because all the participants in that agreement had to do something, and almost every one of them, with the exception of Sinn Fein-IRA, has done what was required. Her Majesty's Government were required to commence the release of terrorists imprisoned for criminal offences. I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is listening. There was no time scale for the beginning of the release of prisoners. There was a two-year end-date, but no date for the beginning, yet the release of prisoners has commenced.
  The review of policing in Northern Ireland and the review of the criminal justice system—these were commitments by Her Majesty's Government, and they have commenced. There was a commitment by the Dublin Government and the people of the Republic of Ireland that they would recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. This they have done by means of a referendum. There was a commitment by the SDLP that it would enter into a new British-Irish Council, replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement—this it has agreed to do.
  I was in Edinburgh on Thursday and Friday meeting the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. I was glad to find enthusiasm in Scotland for the British-Irish agreement. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), was in Wales recently and also in the Isle of Man. I gather from his press releases that there is encouragement for the beginning of the British-Irish Council.
  The Ulster Unionists have also made their contribution. They were not happy with the idea of north-south implementation bodies, but on 18 December, we agreed those with the SDLP and with the Irish Government. The six implementation bodies are ready to go into operation, once we get an Executive in Northern Ireland.
  There is only one thing left to happen in order to make the agreement the success that the House wants it to be, and that America, the Dublin Parliament and the peoples in the whole of the island of Ireland want it to be, and in support of which both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have passed motions.
  What is that one remaining thing? It is, of course, decommissioning. Sinn Fein-IRA—the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House has confirmed that they are inextricably linked, and the Dublin Prime Minister has said that they are one and the same organisation, with interchangeable membership—say that there is no need for decommissioning. Well, there is a full chapter on page 20 of the agreement on the need for decommissioning. It is not there by accident. I repeat that it is there as a result of detailed negotiations with all the parties in the Stormont talks, including Sinn Fein-IRA.
  144
  Paragraph 1 states that
  "'the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
  Paragraph 3 of the decommissioning chapter goes on:
  "All participants"—
  that includes Sinn Fein-IRA—
  "accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
  and
  "to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
  Here I want to make a distinction from a comment that was made by the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—I think it was a slip of the tongue. The agreement does not call for total disarmament. It calls for the total disarmament of illegal armaments. It is Gerry Adams who calls for total disarmament. I see that he is away to Australia and already saying that there must be total disarmament—the British Army must have no arms in Northern Ireland, the RUC must have no arms in Northern Ireland, and the farmers must have no shotguns.
  None of that is in the agreement. Sinn Fein-IRA, led by Gerry Adams at the Stormont talks, agreed that the decommissioning should be of illegal armaments only. That is what is in the decommissioning chapter. What is most important in that chapter—I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to pay greater attention to the detail of the Belfast agreement—is the fact that decommissioning is specifically and deliberately connected to the chapter on setting up the Executive.
  That point did not appear in paragraph 1 of the decommissioning chapter by accident. It was put in deliberately and it was agreed by all the participants in the Stormont talks, including the two Governments, that in resolving the decommissioning issue, we
  "also recall the provisions of paragraph 25 of Strand 1"
  of the Belfast agreement.
  Paragraph 25 states that those who want to serve in the Executive of Northern Ireland must be totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods. It states:
  "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means,"
  and it continues:
  "and those who do not should be excluded … from office"—
  in other words, such people cannot even get into the Executive.
  Some speak of such people being removed from office, but the agreement went further, deliberately. It stipulates that people who are not fully committed to non-violent and democratic means will be excluded from the Executive. That is the way that most people in Northern Ireland interpret the agreement, and it is certainly the interpretation of the main party in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party. There is no way that Ulster Unionists will serve in an Executive with people who have not ensured the decommissioning of their illegal armaments.
  Mr. Wilshire: May I be clear about what I have just heard? Did I hear it stated that it is a clear, firm policy of the Ulster Unionist party that it will not sit in an Executive with Sinn Fein-IRA until decommissioning in a substantial form has started?
  Mr. Taylor: Absolutely. Decommissioning in a credible form must have taken place before we accept

  145
  Sinn Fein-IRA in an Executive in Northern Ireland. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman realised that that has been our policy from the outset.
  Mr. Hunter: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further? Total commitment to non-violence and democracy must surely mean total disarmament. We are not talking about a few weapons or a few ounces, pounds or tonnes of Semtex in that context. It is total commitment and therefore total disarmament.
  Mr. Taylor: When someone tells me what total disarmament is, I will understand what that intervention means. It all depends on one's knowledge of how many illegal armaments there are in Northern Ireland. There cannot be total disarmament until we are aware of the total number of illegal arms. Let us not pursue that. We want credible disarmament so that the people of Northern Ireland can see that decommissioning is under way. Let us not quibble over other words.
  Decommissioning is an important issue in Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the intervention of the Dublin Prime Minister, Mr. Bertie Ahern. He analysed the situation accurately, but he is not on his own. As has been mentioned, the Deputy Prime Minister of the south of Ireland did so in Australia last week. Significantly, the annual conference of the Fine Gael party, the main Opposition party which could well form the next Dublin Government, unanimously passed a motion, Saturday week ago, that there must be decommissioning for Sinn Fein to get into the Executive in Northern Ireland. I hope that there will be similar statements from London and Washington in coming weeks.
  I am disappointed because I think that Sinn Fein-IRA are not taking this issue seriously. The leader of Sinn Fein, who was elected as a Member of Parliament but has refused to take his seat, Mr. Gerry Adams, is not in Northern Ireland; he is in Australia. He will be away for 10 days, and then he is going on to celebrate St. Patrick's day in the United States. Yet 10 March has been stated by the Secretary of State as the deadline to get the Executive up and moving in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that Sinn Fein-IRA are not taking the issue of decommissioning seriously. If that is so, I regret to say that an impasse will have been reached.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's giving way. He said that the whole thing could collapse in a year's time. Is there anything in the Belfast agreement that would prevent the Secretary of State, even now, from appointing to the Executive those who have honoured their commitment and leaving out those who obviously have not? One bears in mind the fact that it was not in a clandestine position that the negotiator representing Sinn Fein-IRA on decommissioning said that it was not a question of the IRA being unable to decommission, but that it would not.
  Mr. Taylor: Everything depends on one's individual interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would think that Sinn Fein-IRA could be excluded under the terms of the Belfast agreement, but obviously the Secretary of State, at the moment, does not.
  It has been said by Sinn Fein-IRA that decommissioning has not happened in other countries. It is important to place on record that some of the main
  146
  terrorist and revolutionary campaigns have resulted in decommissioning in order for political and democratic solutions to emerge and to stick. For example, Lebanon can be cited as one of the worst examples that we have had in the past 20 years. In 1989, there was an agreement whereby the green line—it ran for five miles between the Christian and Muslim territories in Beirut—was removed. It is significant that under the Taif accord, which brought about successful political reform, it was insisted that the disbandment and disarmament of all militia should take place. That disbandment and disarmament of all militia—Christian and Muslim—took place in advance of the political settlement.
  Likewise in Mozambique, people were trying to get a political process under way without decommissioning. The then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, strenuously rejected that and held fast to the point that elections could be held only after full demobilisation had taken place. In 1994, the United Nations operations in Mozambique confirmed that there had been the total disarmament of the various illegal organisations in that country.
  Thirdly, I remember the troubles in E1 Salvador from my time as a Member of the European Parliament. Again, there was an agreement—in 1992—which brought about the total disarmament and decommissioning of illegally held weaponry, in pursuit of peace. A settlement was then achieved, so it is important to place on record the need for decommissioning for peaceful, democratic government to emerge in countries such as Lebanon, Mozambique and E1 Salvador.
  There are places where there has not been decommissioning; one is South Africa. Anyone who has been there in the past two years will know that people now regret that they did not have decommissioning before they reached a political settlement. Now there are more illegal arms running around South Africa than there are lawful arms, and the situation is deteriorating in some of the major cities.
  The order is timely. We have to achieve the beginning of credible decommissioning to achieve a political settlement in Northern Ireland. We are 95 per cent. of the way to achieving what every Member of the House would like achieve in Northern Ireland, but, at the moment, I remain unconvinced that that will happen. There is less than a 50 per cent. chance of the Belfast agreement succeeding; I still believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will not decommission and that they are determined to wreck the Belfast agreement.
  On that note, I shall ask one question of the Secretary of State. Last week, Sinn Fein-IRA were caught by the Royal Ulster Constabulary with firearms—that is the Provisional IRA, which is supposed to be at peace and on ceasefire. In what year were the detonators that were discovered with the explosives last week manufactured?
  11.27 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Before I come to the main points that I want to make, I want to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. He suggested that whereas there was in the Republic of Ireland a will to say that there would be, or should be, no entry into an Executive before decommissioning, we had not heard that sort of sentiment expressed in this House.

  147
  If I have understood the debate correctly, I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) make that point absolutely and I have heard the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) make the very same point—there can be no entry into an Executive before a credible start to decommissioning is made. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) feels the same and I have made my position absolutely clear. In case I have not, let me restate that there are some Members of this House, and a large number of people in this country, who believe that it is absolutely intolerable to contemplate armed terrorists taking their seats in a democratic Government.
  I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State, but was not able to do so. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make clear for this House exactly where Her Majesty's Government stand on the question of entry into an Executive before there is a start to decommissioning. This House and this country have the right to know exactly what is the Government's policy on that matter.
  These are my main points. As the House will know, I was unhappy when the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was first brought to the House and I am still unhappy about this process. I felt then, and I feel now, that the whole act of an amnesty allows bombers and murderers to get away scot free. It therefore follows that I wish we were not doing what we are doing tonight. Nevertheless, I am a democrat and I accept that it was the will of the House that the Act should be passed. I have no objection to us continuing, having started down this track. I do not intend to force a Division. The House will want to renew the order.
  I have little doubt that the few of us present tonight will be back again next year and the year after to extend the period, because we are wasting our time. Sinn Fein-IRA have never had any intention of decommissioning—and they never will. Do not take my word for it: listen to Sinn Fein-IRA, which have made it clear that there will be no decommissioning. Let us come back next year and have another go, and see whether we can persuade ourselves that this is a good idea.
  I understand only too well why the Government want to fudge the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. If they do that, they can justify to themselves—and they can try to justify it to the country—that they can, after all, allow armed terrorists into an Executive.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Government are implementing the Good Friday agreement, which the party leaders in Northern Ireland agreed to and for which the people voted. The agreement says clearly—this is our position—that decommissioning must take place and the Executive must be formed. Both must happen for the Good Friday agreement to work.
  Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Lady has yet again not told us in which order that must happen. Will the Minister, when he winds up, please tell us in which order those two things must happen?
  Marjorie Mowlam: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I can explain that it is up to the parties to decide in which order that takes place. The parties,
  148
  with the Government's support and encouragement, must find a mechanism to move this process forward. They have done so in the past on other issues, and I believe that, with the will and determination they have shown, they can do so again.
  Mr. Wilshire: If I understand that intervention correctly, the Secretary of State is saying that she is prepared to contemplate allowing armed terrorists into an Executive. That is nothing short of abject surrender to the gunmen.
  Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are witnessing is a process of appeasement that morally corrupts the appeasers? The Government give way every time inch by inch simply to keep the process going. We are witnessing a moral corruption of government and a corruption of moral authority.
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is how he and I have always seen it.
  I also understand only too well why the Government claim that there is no proof that the recent find of arms has anything to do with Sinn Fein-IRA. It is convenient to claim that there is no link, because that way they can pretend that the ceasefire is still in place. I also understand why the Government are prepared to believe the wholly spurious claim that Sinn Fein-IRA weaponry has been stolen. When it is used, it is possible to fudge the issue yet again by saying that it was not used by Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I also understand only too well why the Government are always talking about a start to decommissioning. If they are pushed hard, they may call it a meaningful start, which perhaps means two bullets rather than one. I also understand why the Government keep talking about tokens of good faith. The one thing we can never accuse Sinn Fein-IRA of is having good faith.
  Mr. Barnes: Sinn Fein-IRA may not have good faith, but they are subject to influences and pressures from other people. Their involvement in intimidation and terror has been highlighted, so they have backed off in the past fortnight. They have done so because attention has been drawn to such activity in the House and elsewhere. If we advance such arguments, we have the moral authority to shift opinion. Even more important, opinion in the Irish Republic and throughout Northern Ireland will help to change the position.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that those who would have had their kneecaps smashed and their ankles smashed and their elbows smashed are grateful for a fortnight's respite; but I do not think that tells us a great deal about what will happen.
  Mr. Barnes: That is an obnoxious response. I have tried, in the House, to aid bodies such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror in order to ensure that such action stops, and I have always seen that as an attempt to secure decommissioning in the end. If we stop exile, beatings and intimidation, we shall move a stage further, and the prize will be decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman may not like what I have said, but I very much dislike the response that I have just received from him.
  Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman feels that I was being personal in regard to him, let me put the record

  149
  straight. I know of his integrity in these matters, I know of his hard work and I know of his commitment; 1 did not seek to cast aspersions on his approach. As far as I can see, however, any sort of token decommissioning will not get us anywhere. This is the slippery slope towards moral corruption that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. Sinn Fein-IRA have enough Semtex to spare a tonne of it, and still murder and maim thousands of people in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. There must be total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms and explosives—a point made by the right hon. Member for Strangford.
  However often we return to the House to renew the order, terrorists will always be the same. Terrorists keep arms for one purpose, and for one purpose only: to use them to kill people, and to obtain ever more concessions from those who are foolish enough to try to do deals with them. However much this Government twist and turn, in the end all they are doing is seeking to appease killers, bombers and maimers. History teaches us—if we only care to read it—that appeasement is always doomed to failure.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall try to be brief, as I realise time is short.
  I welcome the renewal of the order. When we discussed the whole question of the agreement last year, it was obvious that, to a certain extent, the agreement involved an act of faith: that the peace process could be got moving, and that a momentum would be maintained. It seems to me that one of the features of today's debate—and I certainly enjoyed listening to the contributions—is that there is a growing crystallisation and unanimity about some of the next stages of that peace process, which is moving away from simply the minutiae of the detail of the agreement to what is actually required to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland. In that context, decommissioning is clearly central, and it always seemed to me that it would be central when we discussed the agreement last year.
  We cannot predict what will happen. Certainly, the Government have my best wishes and my good will to bring about what appears at the moment to be very difficult, but I must tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that it has seemed to me from the various discussions that I have had that the position of Sinn Fein-IRA on this issue has not been to look at legalistic niceties within the agreement, but to make blanket proclamations that they do not intend to decommission. If that is indeed their intention, this peace process is going straight into the sand. That seemed to me to be the case when we discussed the agreement and looked at the legalistic niceties last year, and it seems to me that it remains the position this year. It is therefore greatly to be hoped that the pressure that has been spoken about—not just by what we say in the House, which I dare say will carry very little weight, but by those outside and, indeed, in other countries—may be brought to bear on Sinn Fein, so that it can see the advantages of moving and showing that it really intends to maintain a peace process. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was right: that is clearly very difficult in view of the culture of violence and of the gun that has prevailed in Northern Ireland. I share his view that we in a democratic assembly sometimes forget that there is another world—the other
  150
  side of the mirror—which, to those who participate in it, appears to have equal validity, even if we as democrats have abandoned it. Therefore, it is a difficult transition to make. I agree with his comments on that point.
  All we can do is hold the door open. What we are doing by passing the order and renewing it is holding that door open. On that basis, I welcome the order and hope that the parties start to move through that door.
  11.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The debate has been brief, but interesting and, in some ways, thought provoking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for their thoughtful contributions. Both hon. Members always add balance to the debate. We are grateful for that.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—someone who has been very close to the whole process—made a major contribution. Obviously, the Government will take his points into account. Clearly, he is very close to the negotiations, discussions and the whole process. He knows the way in which the issue can be moved forward and the momentum maintained. I read from his comments that he wants the Good Friday agreement to work. He knows that that is the overwhelming view of the people in Northern Ireland. It is important that that message is put across: it is a difficult process, to which we are trying to find answers.
  When it was last debated, the order was dealt with in Committee. Representations were made by the Opposition to have it debated on the Floor of the House. There was no objection from the Government. We felt that it would be useful, but it is interesting to note that, having made those representations, the shadow Secretary of State is not here. There may be good reasons why he is not here. I understand that he was in Northern Ireland today. I just make the point that I and, more important, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have had to come back for the debate in the middle of a very difficult process. There has been a discourteous approach by the Opposition. I do not object to the debate taking place on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we can get a much more serious contribution from Her Majesty's official Opposition on the issue.
  Not all parties from Northern Ireland are represented in the debate. That reflects what the right hon. Member for Strangford and others have said. It is an important order, but it should be approved and not used as a vehicle for other debates, with hon. Members trying to widen the debate into other areas.
  I cannot stress too strongly how important the draft order and the subject of decommissioning are. They are critical to the whole process and underpin the Good Friday agreement. As the Secretary of State said, the draft order will allow for an extension of the period during which there can be the amnesty from prosecution for offences, mainly possession related, committed by people during decommissioning. Without it, there would be no decommissioning, which is, after all, a voluntary process that, but for the provisions of the 1997 Act, would put people at risk of prosecution.
  I want to make it clear that there must be decommissioning. It is an essential part of the Good Friday agreement, which all parties to the agreement endorsed

  151
  and said they would urge others to achieve. The agreement is not something from which one can pick and choose the bit one likes and will abide by. All parties who have endorsed the agreement should take early action to show their commitment to it.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford listed the various matters dealt with in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—on which the Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland have made progress and which fell to them to implement. They operated with no time scale operating against them, but with a determination and commitment to create an entirely new environment in Northern Ireland. We have started to do that against very difficult odds, after facing up to some very difficult conditions.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Minister answer a very simple question? Does he endorse the statement on decommissioning that the Taoiseach made the other day and that has been mentioned several times in this debate? Yes or no?
  Mr. Ingram: The Taoiseach speaks for himself, and the hon. Gentleman should read what he said both in that interview and in the Dail. The Taoiseach speaks for himself, and we do not speak for the Irish Government. We say that both processes must move forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said both in her opening remarks and in response to similar interventions, there are two strands to the process—decommissioning and the Executive. They must happen; otherwise, we shall not have continuation of the Good Friday agreement. That is the reality. It is the complex environment in which we operate, and the matter to which we are trying to seek agreement.
  The matter rests not only with the Government, or with the two Governments, but with all the parties who signed up to the Belfast agreement. No one said that the process would be an easy one or that it was a matter simply of reaching agreement and, the day after, of everything falling automatically into place. If Opposition Members think that that is how peace processes work, they have not been living in this century or understood the lessons of history.
  Mr. Wilshire: I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak for the Republic's Government, but will he speak for the British Government? Will he tell us, please, whether the British Government will allow into the Northern Ireland Executive armed terrorists before they have started decommissioning? Will the Government sanction such entry, or will they not?
  Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State already answered that question, and there is no point in my trying to find different words simply to repeat what she said.
  I want to quote from a letter to the Leader of the Opposition that was written on 6 January 1998 by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He wrote:
  "I had absolutely no doubt that its 'Peace Process' was doomed to failure and that the Talks were going nowhere."
  Within months of that letter being written, we had the Belfast agreement and had made substantial progress, both
  152
  in the referendum and in the commitment of the parties to take the process forward. Progress continued right up to December and beyond it, into the new year.
  I do not want to enter into debate with the hon. Member for Spelthorne as his speech was over the top, and I tend to ignore such speeches. However, his speech was deeply offensive to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to other Labour Members who are trying to move the process forward. We are not appeasers of terrorism—which is the most outrageous statement to make about any right hon. or hon. Member. The Government—like previous Governments—have been resolute against terrorism. That is why we have committed so many brave men and women—in the RUC and in the armed forces—to defend the democracy that we want to uphold in Northern Ireland. We shall continue to do so.
  I do not want to get involved in a debate with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, as the judgment that he demonstrated in his letter to the Leader of the Opposition shows that his opinions, which may be strong ones, are misplaced.
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ingram: I shall not constantly give way. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make a speech in the debate but has only intervened in the speeches of other hon. Members. He could have collected his thought processes and made a speech, but—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that he could not have done that, but I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He decided not to make a speech.
  We have already seen some decommissioning. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the LVF has decommissioned weapons through the independent commission. We can only hope that that action will be followed by others.
  Decommissioning not only can happen, it must happen, and I am certain that it will happen with the determination and commitment of those who hold illegal weapons in Northern Ireland. The question is no longer whether there will be decommissioning, but when terrorist and paramilitary groups will start the process. The sooner they do, the better it will be for everyone. The order provides a framework for the process to be taken forward and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

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

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft Diplomatic Privileges (British Nationals) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

  Badgers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. [Betts.]
  11.51 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: In May 1997, just days after I was elected, a planned cull of badgers in my constituency was stopped. Understandably, that caused much anxiety among local farmers and ensured that badgers and bovine tuberculosis quickly became a key priority for me as a new Member of Parliament. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having received a delegation of six farmers from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), with whom I share the debate. He also took time to visit the farm of Mr. George Richardson at Ham in my constituency to discuss the problems that badgers posed in his environment. Sadly, I have learnt since then that Mr. Richardson's farm has gone down with TB. On that farm the Minister saw how difficult it is for farmers to follow Government advice on keeping badgers and cattle apart.
  Over the past decade the number of cases of TB in cattle has risen steadily. Although the west country is the traditional stronghold of the disease, it is spreading rapidly in Staffordshire, particularly along the border with Derbyshire. During 1998 there were 30 confirmed TB herd breakdowns in Staffordshire, but the most worrying fact is the rate of increase of TB incidence, at around 30 per cent. year on year. The other main concern is the virulent strain of TB that seems to be prevalent in Staffordshire.
  Following the Krebs report, the sum of evidence strongly supports the view that badgers are a cause of bovine TB outbreaks. However, due to the previous Government's failure to grasp the nettle there has been no proper experimental study to enable firm conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of badger culling and other methods of controlling the disease, so I strongly support the Government's decision to implement the culling trial. We must establish whether the culling of badgers influences bovine TB cases and which culling strategy is the most effective. I was disappointed that, given the spread of the disease in Staffordshire, the area was not declared a hot spot. That would have allowed careful examination of the worrying local situation.
  There is frustration in my constituency that nothing seems to have happened locally since the cull was stopped in May 1997. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is acutely aware of the hardship and real trauma caused by TB breakdown, having met some of my local farmers. He should be congratulated for increasing compensation to the full market value of infected cattle. Farmers in my area have told me how grateful they are for the increased compensation, although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, those facing prolonged periods of shutdown suffer substantial additional losses. The National Farmers Union has calculated that the new compensation arrangements meet only 16 per cent. of the costs of the breakdown. I quote the figure to indicate how desperate farmers become at the prospect of a herd breakdown.
  154
  I would like to read a short letter that I received last week from Christine Chester, a dairy farmer from Foxt in my constituency. She wrote:
  "Dear Charlotte, As from yesterday we have become another statistic in the Tuberculosis in cattle story. We have previously had over 40 years clear of TB in a closed herd, i.e. no bought in cattle. What have we done to deserve this? I am old enough to remember the cost and effort of clearing the country of TB in cattle in the 1950s-60s. I never thought we should have to go through it all again."
  I am concerned about the way in which some farmers and wildlife trusts have reacted to the problem of badgers. They should be working together, rather than fighting each other. My biggest fear is that farmers will take the law into their own hands. It has been reported to me that poisoning is going on around the Wetton area in my constituency. It has been said that potatoes have been injected with strychnine for badgers to pick up. No one wants that to happen. Most farmers are caring about their animals. There is a real concern that badger numbers are getting out of control. Their main predator now is the car, which kills twenty times the number that the Government propose to cull.
  Mr. William Cash: As a Staffordshire Member of Parliament, may I put on record that I welcome the remarks of the hon. Lady, and look forward to hearing from the Minister that compensation will be suitable in the circumstances, and that adequate resources will be made available to deal with the problem?
  Charlotte Atkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
  The Woodchester park experiment has found no relationship between population density and the incidence of disease in badgers.
  Mr. David Drew: I am no expert on Staffordshire, but the Woodchester park research station is in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key improvements that could be made is an effective testing regime, not just for cattle but for badgers?
  Charlotte Atkins: I agree, and it is vital that we get the testing right. Concerns have been raised about the culling programme in Devon. It would be a disaster if we were to embark on a cull of badgers and a testing regime on cattle—which can be stressful for all concerned—if no reliable data emerges from the trials.
  One of my main concerns is that it seems that the badger population has increased by about 76 per cent. in 10 years. That raises the question of ecological balance, and particularly the influence of badgers on other animals, such as ground-nesting birds. I represent an area with a strong tourist industry—an area of great natural beauty. People come to the area to observe the wildlife, and there is concern at the effect of TB on wildlife and on the local tourist industry. Inevitably, there will be opposition to the culling, and I recognise the strongly held views of animal welfare groups. However, I believe that TB is not good for cattle, badgers or people, and we must get this right.
  Up to 50 per cent. of TB cases are likely to be outside the trial areas—in places such as Staffordshire, Moorlands. Action must be taken in those non-hot-spot areas. It is not realistic to expect non-trial areas to wait until at least 2005 before action is taken. I urge my hon.

  155
  Friend the Minister to consider those non-trial areas and ensure that the Ministry presses ahead with advice and work with the farming industry to evaluate different animal husbandry methods and ensure that we keep the spread of disease under control. I also advocate the early and comprehensive recommencement of post-mortem examination of badger road casualties. Wildlife trusts should co-operate in that experiment; very often, badger carcases are quickly removed from the roadside.
  Many more resources should go into developing a vaccine and into scientific research on the health and growth of the badger population. We do not have enough information at present.
  12.1 am
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing this debate on a subject that is extremely important to both our adjoining constituencies. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part.
  My hon. Friend read a profound letter from her constituent. I can also remember the cattle being tested for TB when I was growing up on a farm in the 1950s. It was a time when herds were gradually regaining their TB-free status. My parents, like other farmers, hoped and prayed that there would be no reactors to the tests each time those tests took place. That was especially significant to them as my father had had TB himself in the 1930s.
  In the years that followed, some parts of the country, unfortunately, continued to have problems with bovine TB, but in most areas it was considered a problem of the past. One of the farms in my constituency had been free of TB since 1952; and that farm also has always had a closed herd. Therefore, when there was a reactor in August 1997, it was clear that the infection could have come only from the land itself. Over the next few months, the farm continued to have reactors, losing 42 of its 90 cattle.
  Thankfully, there have now been two clear tests and my constituents can only assume that that is because they have ceased to use for grazing any fields where there is evidence of badgers. That means that they have ceased to graze 20 of their 65 acres. I certainly hope that the herd remains clear. If it does, with my constituents' expensive husbandry methods, that could provide vital evidence both on how to contain TB in cattle and on the connection with the badger population.
  Such good husbandry experiments need to be evaluated, even though they are, as my hon. Friend said, currently outside the trial cull areas. It is also vital that, if there are any lessons to be learned from the trial cull areas as the experiments take place, action should not wait until 2005, especially if it is likely that there could be any delay taking the trial beyond that date.
  It is important that animal welfare groups, badger groups and farmers work together in the next few years, for the sake of the badgers and the cattle. No one wants any animals to be slaughtered needlessly. It is essential that there be full co-operation with the trials to ensure that the experiment is valid. It is important to monitor the number of badgers and their condition without interference, and that badgers remain protected outside the designated cull areas.
  156
  As my hon. Friend said, farmers on the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border who are affected are disappointed that their area has not been included in the trials, especially as there has been a rapid spread of herd breakdowns in an area where a cull had been due to start in 1997 and where it seems that there is a virulent strain of TB.
  My constituents were grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting them and listening to their concerns. They welcome the Government's decision to pay the full market value of infected cattle. However, as my example of the way in which my constituents have tried to protect their cattle from infection shows, good husbandry can be expensive. Indeed, on some farms, it may be impossible to isolate the cattle from the badgers.
  It is essential that we establish once and for all the connection between the badger population and the incidence of bovine TB. It is essential that we show whether the number of badgers in an area is significant. We must find the best way to contain the problem until the ultimate solution of a cattle vaccine is a reality. I know that the Minister is well aware of the problems that bovine TB has caused to many farmers. This is a sensitive subject, but it is vitally important to the welfare of badgers, cattle and, ultimately, human beings.
  12.5 am
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and other hon. Members who are present tonight. This is a serious issue and the Ministry and I have taken it seriously. Indeed, in a few weeks' time I will appear before the Agriculture Select Committee, and I have run a check on my activities. As a Minister, in 22 months, I have had 40 separate meetings or visits with farmers and scientists to discuss the issue. It is constantly before me in my work as a Minister.
  It is to the credit of the previous Government that they set up the Krebs inquiry, because if they had not done so we would have had to do something similar. As it was, we had Professor Krebs' report by December 1997. I take full responsibility for stopping the badger removal operation, or cull, moving into new counties before the Krebs report was published. Four farms in Staffordshire were expecting badger removal operations and I have met some of the people involved. However, I decided, supported by my ministerial colleagues, that it did not make sense to continue a policy that clearly did not work into new counties before the publication of the Krebs report. Apart from any other issue, we might have needed areas to conduct trials of the very nature that Krebs in the event recommended. That does not satisfy the farmers in Staffordshire but as my hon. Friends know—and I am grateful for their comments—I have visited the farms and met the farmers in my office in London and I know the situation at first hand.
  The incidence of TB in cattle in Great Britain has been rising since the early 1980s, with a much more significant rise in recent years. Nearly 4,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered in 1997. I do not have the final figure for 1998, but it will be more than 6,000. The number of incidents in 1997 was 515. We already know that in 1998

  157
  there were at least 720 and we expect that there were 30 more, although it can take six to eight weeks to complete the tests and they sometimes have to be repeated. That is why there is a caveat with regard to the figures—but we expect a 40 per cent. increase over 1997.
  In Staffordshire, there were no TB incidents in 1994, but there was a worrying increase to 24 in 1997. In 1998, we have had 30 confirmed incidents so far, an increase of 25 per cent. Indeed, for the first time in many years, TB has been confirmed in the Moorlands constituency and I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Moorlands.
  There are no easy fixes. No single policy option is available to the Government to fix or solve the problem—hence our adoption of the recommendations of Professor Krebs, which have been put into practical effect by the independent expert group, chaired by Professor Bourne. As the scientists point out, our multifaceted strategy will allow us to come up with a sustainable policy for controlling and eradicating TB in cattle. It is not the Government's policy to eradicate the badger: it is not an endangered species in this country.
  The five-point strategy announced last August put the protection of public health first and gave due weight to our commitment to animal welfare. Until around this time last year, my Ministry and the Department of Health were not checking human cases of TB to determine the exact strain, but we are now monitoring all human cases for M. bovis.
  The long-term strategy is to develop a vaccine: 10 years ago, such a vaccine was 10 or 15 years away, and that is still the case. We intend to devote a lot more money to the development of a cattle vaccine. We took all the bids and made the relevant assessments last autumn, and we shall announce the details of our research programme for the next financial year.
  In addition, we have a strategy for looking at research projects so that we can better understand how the infection is transmitted. Whoever finds the route of transmission that infection takes will win a Nobel prize, but as yet it is not known.
  We also have policies for the detection and prevention of cattle-to-cattle spread. At present, we are examining the arrangements to see whether they can be strengthened to stop the spread of the disease in the short term.
  In addition, there is the culling trial. From what some hon. Members and commentators have said, it would be possible to believe that we are doing no more than holding the culling trial. In fact, that is only part of the overall strategy to find a way to control and eradicate TB in cattle.
  Mr. John Burnett rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I appreciate the generosity of the Minister in giving way, but I feel that I must point out that Adjournment debates such as this are the personal possession of the hon. Member who moves the motion. That hon. Member—in this case, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)—is entitled to a full ministerial reply. This is not a generalised debate. It is about tuberculosis
  158
  in Staffordshire, and other hon. Members who intervene are taking away from the hon. Member who has been given the opportunity of the debate time in which she can get a full reply.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon will understand what you have said.
  Of course, the culling trial is not taking place in Staffordshire. So far, we have announced only the first two triplets, which will take place in Devon and Cornwall, and in Gloucester-Hereford. We did not successfully complete the culling strategy in one of those triplets. At present, we are in the close season of February, March and April, when no culling will take place in any event. In the near future, we will be in a position to make the decisions involved in organising the strategy for the summer.
  I have to say that there was some minimal interference with the trial in December. The policy is to take 10 triplets of 30 areas in the country, and I do not know whether Staffordshire or other parts of the country will be chosen by the expert group for the other triplets. It is clear that there are areas in Staffordshire where the problem is very severe indeed, but I do not know whether the incidence there is sufficient to make up three triplets for the strategy to be operated for the culling trial.
  The Government and the independent expert group have said that decisions to choose the triplet areas for the reactive, proactive and survey-only culling will be taken on the basis of the latest available information. That is very important for farmers in Staffordshire and other areas that are not traditional hotspots for the disease. In other words, we shall not be looking at the sort of snapshot that was examined by Krebs three or four years ago. The latest information—which of course will be from 1998—will be assessed this spring. If a pattern is detected in the change of breakdowns, areas of the country other than the south-west will be chosen.
  I am grateful for what has been said about the increase in compensation. It was right to increase it to 100 per cent. of market value, with no upper limit. Farmers who have come to my office, and whom I have gone to see on their farms, have been literally broken men as they have watched their prize beasts, worth thousands of pounds, go down with TB. Those farmers were paid next to no compensation under the old system: at least today we can offer them the market value of the beast. I accept that compensation amounts to only about 16 per cent. of the total loss of a farmer, and the previous policy provided about 11 per cent. That comes nowhere near compensating for the effect of the distress on the farm and the loss to the farm of income and other support. It is, however, the best we can do at present.
  We are spending a considerable amount of extra money, allocated under the comprehensive spending review, on vaccine research and on the trial. For vaccine research, there will be more than £1.5 million. We were severely criticised by the Krebs report for putting proportionately more money into compensation and testing than into looking for a vaccine. We shall spend about £16 million on testing and compensation, and the trial will cost nearly £10 million in addition to other work.
  I do not know where the triplets will be, but I want to emphasise that participation in the culling trial areas is entirely voluntary. There is no compulsion.

  159
  The Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do not have the legal authority under the Animal Health Act 1981 to conduct a compulsory experiment for the trial. A press release has been issued today on behalf of organic beef farmers which refers to our debate and to the Select Committee on Agriculture's inquiry. However, farmers in the triplet areas who do not wish to participate do not have to. There is no compulsion, and there never has been.
  Some landowners have allowed us to survey for badgers, but not to cull them. We have had a good response in the Devon and Cornwall area where the trial took place, and the results are still being analysed. The scheme is entirely voluntary, and not every farmer wishes to participate.
  I do not see widespread badger culling as the answer. There is a problem for farmers outside the culling trial areas. When all 10 triplets are up and running, they will cover only a very small part of the land area of the United Kingdom, and a small part of the areas affected by tuberculosis. Our only real hope lies in the work that we are doing to check other wildlife species for strains of TB, the road accident surveys that we shall start in the new financial year, and the advice and guidance that we shall publish in conjunction with the National Farmers Union on husbandry techniques.
  The latter is no criticism of farmers' existing husbandry techniques, but we are trying to review all the areas in which there has been a breakdown in the past. That has not been done before, but we want to consider all the evidence from breakdown areas to see whether there is any pattern. There may be an environmental pattern or a weather pattern or some other lesson that we can learn from previous incidences that would allow us to give information to farmers in other parts of the country.
  In the areas of the south-west where the great hotspots are, there are massive numbers of breakdowns already, but there are also areas including farms that have never had a case of TB even though there are badgers on the farms. There is a great contradiction that makes it
  160
  extremely difficult to conduct a policy. Farmers and those in the food production chain need to know that we have a policy, but we cannot have a policy without firm information and valid science to underpin it. We have not had that in the past, and no previous strategy has worked, as is proved by the rising incidence in current herd breakdowns. If previous policies had worked, we would not be where we are now.
  We have no long-term plan to eradicate badgers, even though we are doing so in a small area of 10 sq km in each of the 10 triplet areas. We intend simply to test our strategy, and we shall not know the results for two or three years. We cannot base our policy on the trials of the first or second years, for which we shall not have the results until the following year.
  I cannot give my hon. Friend the answers that she seeks, but I hope that I have given the House some indication of how seriously the Government take the problem. We have put in far greater resources for the new financial year starting in March, and we have doubled the number of employees that we are recruiting to the wildlife unit to ensure that we can do the job properly. We have to take care of MAFF staff, who have a difficult job: they are out all hours, in all weathers, and firearms are involved in their work. I am not prepared to have the safety of MAFF staff put at risk in any way and I do not want anyone to take the law into their own hands, for that would interfere with the validity of the trials and would not help farmers in the long run.
  The badger is a protected species, but it is not endangered—there are people currently serving gaol sentences for interfering with badgers. We shall operate the law as set down and as we are required to do. There will be no free-for-all and no one is encouraging farmers to take the law into their own hands, because that will not serve the purpose of finding a policy to control and eradicate tuberculosis in cattle, which is our basic objective.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Portadown
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been(a) charged, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted under section 8(7) of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 in relation to contravention of the conditions placed by the Parades Commission on the legally notified marches organised by the Orange Order in Portadown on (i) 5 July 1998, (ii) 5 September 1998, (iii) 28 November 1998, (iv) 19 December 1998, (v) 30 December 1998 and (vi) 2 January 1999. [70208]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Prisoners
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been convicted of scheduled offences within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1973, 1978, 1991 and 1996 since 10 April 1998; and how many of them received(a) a mandatory life sentence and (b) a fixed term sentence of five years or more. [70140]

  Mr. Ingram
  From 10 April 1998 to 31 December 1998, 123 people have been convicted of scheduled offences. Of those convicted six were given mandatory life sentences and 23 received a fixed term sentence of five years or more.Note:
  These statistics are currently being updated and may be subject to change.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland have been(a) arrested on suspicion of, (b) charged and (c) convicted of conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 as amended by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. [69878]

  (a) Public admission

  (b) Hold public meetings

  (c) Lay or consumer representatives

  (d) Appeal or complaints procedure

  NI Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  1,2Yes

  1,3Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  1,2yes

  1,3Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  2
  Mr. Ingram
  No one has been charged or convicted under the equivalent provision in Northern Ireland. I am unable to say whether or not anyone has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom: no central record is kept of arrests made under that heading.

  RUC
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the status of the current review of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [70097]

  Mr. Ingram
  The independent Policing Commission is consulting widely and has received over 2,000 submissions—the vast majority from individual members of the public. It has met with many of the key figures in the field of policing and has recently held a number of public meetings throughout Northern Ireland. As the Agreement says, the Commission will report by summer 1999.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the London banisters' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for her Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The detailed information requested is either the subject of confidentiality or could not be answered on the ground of disproportionate costs (or both).

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to the Departmental Solicitors Office and the Crown Solicitors Office, 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 Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her 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.[69989]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  3

  (a) Public admission

  (b) Hold public meetings

  (c) Lay or consumer representatives

  (d) Appeal or complaints procedure

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  1,2Yes

  1,3Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  Southern Education and Library Board

  1,2Yes

  1,3Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  Western Education and Library Board

  1,2Yes

  1,3Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  Staff Commissioner for Education and Library Board

  No

  No

  1Yes

  No

  Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Labour Relations Agency

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Construction and Industry Training Board

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Enterprise Ulster

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Ulster Supported Employment Ltd.

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial

  Action

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Laganside Corporation

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Local Government Staff Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  1Yes

  1Yes

  No

  Yes

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern

  Ireland

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Pig Production Development Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Harbour Authority

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Juvenile Justice Board

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1 Under a statutory requirement

  2 Other than a Teaching Appointments Committee meeting

  3 Except where the nature of the business to be transacted would be prejudicial to the public interest

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer

  (a) Public Admission

  (b) Hold public meetings

  (c) Lay or consumer representatives

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit (Advisory Board)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Training and Employment Agency (Advisory Board)

  No

  No

  No

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Charities Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1—

  Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Disability Council

  No

  No

  No

  Statute Law Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Economic Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Higher Education Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Travellers

  No

  No

  Yes

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  No

  No

  No

  Historic Buildings Council

  No

  No

  No

  4
  representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69966]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  5

  (a) Public Admission

  (b) Hold public meetings

  (c) Lay or consumer representatives

  Historic Monuments Council

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Water Council

  No

  No

  Yes

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  No

  No

  No

  1 No statutory requirement for these actions except: the regulations provide for the board to include one member with experience of dealing with a disabled person. This can be a lay person.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of

  (a) Minutes of meetings

  (b) Agendas of meetings and documents

  (c) Register of Members interests

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  No

  No

  No

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Museums Council

  No

  No

  1No

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Western Education and Library Board

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  No

  No

  Yes

  Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Labour Relations Agency

  No

  No

  1No

  Construction Industry Training Board

  No

  No

  1No

  Enterprise Ulster

  No

  No

  1No

  Ulster Supported Employment Limited

  No

  No

  1No

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  No

  No

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  No

  No

  1No

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  No

  No

  No

  Laganside Corporation

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Yes

  No

  No

  Local Government Staff Commission

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  No

  No

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Northern Ireland for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  No

  No

  No

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  2Yes

  2Yes

  2Yes

  Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Pig Production Development Committee

  No

  No

  1No

  Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  No

  No

  1No

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  No

  No

  1No

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  1No

  1No

  1No

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Juvenile Justice Board

  No

  No

  No

  1 Available for inspection on request

  2 Statutory requirement

  6
  members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69955]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  7
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of

  (a) Minutes of meetings

  (b) Agendas of meetings and documents

  (c) Register of members interests

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  1No

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  2No

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit (Advisory Board)

  No

  No

  2No

  Training and Employment Agency (Advisory Board)

  No

  No

  2No

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  2No

  Charities Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Disability Council

  No

  No

  No

  Statute Law Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Economic Council

  2No

  2No

  No

  Northern Ireland Higher Education Council

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Travellers

  No

  No

  No

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  No

  No

  No

  Historic Buildings Council

  No

  No

  No

  Historic Monuments Council

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Water Council

  No

  No

  No

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  No

  No

  No

  1 Published in the Annual Report

  2 Available for inspection on request

  Note:

  No statutory requirements for these actions

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69888]

  Statutory base

  Subject to Parliamentary Commissioner Investigation

  NI Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  Yes

  Yes

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Yes

  Yes

  Sports Council for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Youth Council for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Arts Council of NI

  Yes

  Yes

  National Museums and Galleries of NI

  Yes

  Yes

  NI Museums Council

  No

  Yes

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Western Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Staff Commissioner for Education and Library Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Commission for Racial Equality for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Equal Opportunities Commission for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Fair Employment Commission for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Labour Relations Agency

  Yes

  Yes

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Enterprise Ulster

  Yes

  Yes

  Ulster Supported Employment Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  General Consumer Council for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Yes

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Yes

  Yes

  8
  members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69940]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:
  9

  Statutory base

  Subject to Parliamentary Commissioner Investigation

  NI Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Yes

  Yes

  NI Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Yes

  Yes

  Laganside Corporation

  Yes

  Yes

  NI Housing Executive

  Yes

  Yes

  Local Government Staff Commission

  Yes

  Yes

  NI Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  Yes

  Yes

  Fire Authority for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Mental Health Commission for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  NI Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Yes

  Yes

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Livestock and Meat Commission for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Pig Production Development Committee

  Yes

  No

  Agricultural Wages Board for NI

  Yes

  No

  Agricultural Research Institute of NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  Yes

  No

  NI Fishery Harbour Authority

  Yes

  Yes

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Police Authority for NI

  Yes

  No

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for NI

  Yes

  No

  Probation Board for NI

  Yes

  Yes

  Juvenile Justice Board

  Yes

  Yes

  Speeding Fines
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been raised by speeding fines issued by(a) speed cameras and (b) police officers, in each of the past five years. [71402]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Fixed Penalty notices and Endorsable Fixed Penalty notices, in respect of speed detection, were issued by the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the last 5 years:

  Year

  Police Officers

  Speed cameras

  1994

  31,089

  n/a

  1995

  27,005

  n/a

  1996

  27,380

  n/a

  1997

  126,926

  n/a

  1998

  13,858

  6,674

  1 Including 3,983 endorsable fixed penalty notices

  Mobile speed cameras were first introduced in Northern Ireland on 1 October 1997. Therefore the first full year for which information is available is 1998. Up to 30 September 1997 speeding offences attracted a £20 fine and no penalty points. From 1 October 1997 they attracted a £40 fine and 3 penalty points.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings there were in Northern Ireland between 1 May 1998 and 31 December 1998; and in respect of how many of these incidents, charges have been laid against the alleged perpetrators. [71581]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period 1 May to 31 December 1998. Charges are made on the basis of specific offences, for example, Common assault, Grievous bodily harm and Actual bodily harm. Those which are deemed to be paramilitary-style attacks are not recorded separately and it is therefore not possible to provide information on the number of persons made amenable for these attacks.
  10

  By Loyalists

  By Republican

  Shootings

  25

  19

  Assaults

  65

  40

  Total

  90

  59

  Note:

  The figures may be subject to minor amendment

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her 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. [69968]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1999)The information is as follows:

  (a) Admission of members of the public:

  Members of the public may be admitted to meetings of the Know How Fund Advisory Board, ordinarily at the request of Board members, but individual requests by the public to attend would be considered on their merits. It has not been the practice to admit members of the public to meetings of other advisory bodies. There are no statutory requirements to do so.

  (b) Public meetings:

  It has not generally been the practice to hold public meetings principally because of the nature of the remit or the scope and size of the bodies in question. However, my Department has recently conducted a series of Regional Policy Forums culminating in a National forum to which members of the public were invited and which have contributed to the deliberations of the Development Awareness Working Group. There are no statutory requirements to hold public meetings.

  (c) Lay/Consumer representatives:

  The following bodies have either lay or consumer representatives:

  The Development Awareness Working Group

  The Indian Family Pensions Fund Body of Commissioners

  11

  The Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board

  The Know How Fund Advisory Board

  There are no statutory requirements to appoint lay or consumer representatives.
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her 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. [69977]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]We do not admit members of the public to meetings of the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission and the Crown Agents Holding & Realisation Board and neither of these organisations hold public meetings of those bodies. The nature of their remit is not such as to require lay or consumer representation or an appeal/complaints procedure and there are no statutory requirements to do so.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her 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. [69946]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]Minutes of meetings of the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission are available on request but the minutes, agenda and other papers are not routinely published. A register of members' interests is currently being compiled.

  The Crown Agents Holding & Realisation Board does not satisfy the terms of the question but is expected to be wound up in the near future.

  There are no statutory requirements of this nature.

  a) Contracts awarded to KPMG since 1 May 1997

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£)

  Personnel Controls and Information Systems

  Uganda

  113,902

  Salaries Review Commission—implementation

  Lesotho

  379,950

  Evaluation of company database

  Hungary

  69,488

  Public sector development programme: phase 2

  Grenada

  533,775

  Anguilla public sector development programme

  Anguilla

  77,474

  Caribbean Drugs Initiative: training study formulation

  Caribbean Regional

  24,910

  Emergency assessment of public sector resourcing requirements

  Montserrat

  28,590

  Strengthening government finance and accounting functions

  Kenya

  79,120

  Job evaluation and grading implementation

  South Africa, Republic of

  23,500

  Preparation of Project Memorandum

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  33,330

  Job evaluation implementation project

  South Africa, Republic of

  295,860

  Taxation reform

  Yemen, Republic of

  550,158

  Extension: Salaries Review Commission

  Lesotho

  163,560

  World Bank/DFID institutional specialist

  Ethiopia

  28,448

  Strengthening of Presidential efficiency unit: phase II

  Colombia

  369,865

  Support to the government of Kenya in the development of medium term strategy for Civil Service Reform

  Kenya

  75,830

  Public Sector Development Project—value for money studies

  Dominica

  307,650

  Assistance on rating insurance companies

  Russia

  9,306

  Lesotho police rank structure review

  Lesotho

  37,540

  Caribbean Drugs Initiative: Training Implementation

  Caribbean Regional

  24,620

  Brazil—value for money audit

  Brazil

  496,805

  12
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69913]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board was established under the authority of the Crown Agents Act 1979. Statutory provision for the operations of the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission is made in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. Neither fall within the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Honduran Street Children
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the projects her Department is supporting concerning street children in Casa Alianza, Honduras. [72519]

  Clare Short
  We are not currently funding any Casa Alianza projects in Honduras. Officials from the Department for International Development met representatives of Casa Alianza in Honduras in November last year to discuss their Honduran projects but decided we could not make this project a priority. Obviously it is not possible or efficient for any one donor to work in all sectors.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72015]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 May 1997 DFID has awarded KPMG 27 contracts for services. In the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997 KPMG were awarded 31 contracts. The tables show the project title, the country to which the contract applies, and the total value of the contract.
  13

  a) Contracts awarded to KPMG since 1 May 1997

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£)

  Country policy plan: strategic review

  Anguilla

  29,420

  Institutional appraisal and strategic review of the Royal St. Lucia Police Force

  St. Lucia

  34,175

  Support of restructuring of Russian private enterprise

  Russia

  168,650

  Institutional appraisal and strategic review of the Royal Grenada Police Force

  Grenada

  30,600

  Financial advice for United Nations Relief and Works Agency

  West Bank and Gaza

  207,124

  Public service pay reform in Uganda

  Uganda

  128,303

  b) Contracts awarded by DF1D to KPMG in the corresponding
  period prior to 1 May 1997

  Project title

  Country

  Value (£)

  Spares management study

  India

  37,000

  Assistance to Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue

  South Africa, Republic of

  12,950

  Enterprise Development Review: consultancy team

  Swaziland

  58,000

  Personnel and training specialist

  St. Kitts-Nevis

  95,050

  Public service development project

  Grenada

  208,900

  Restructuring of electricity sector

  Ukraine

  84,960

  Review of the media sector

  Ethiopia

  49,090

  Aden free zone project

  Yemen, Republic of

  89,487

  Assistance in insurance supervision

  Poland

  38,250

  Guyana forestry commission—human resources development study

  Guyana

  49,920

  Good government project identification mission

  Mexico

  22,000

  District primary education West Bengal—institutional consultants

  India

  33,920

  Restructuring of electricity sector

  Ukraine

  382,885

  Presidential review commission

  South Africa, Republic of

  24,050

  Job Evaluation and Grading Project

  South Africa, Republic of

  498,500

  Uganda—Mildmay Palliative care centre

  Uganda

  16,141

  Good government programme

  Mexico

  22,060

  Audit of agricultural bank

  Armenia

  185,358

  Zahony enterprise zone—technical assistance to coordination committee

  Hungary

  89,008

  Efficiency unit project

  Colombia

  184,988

  Civil service reform consultancy

  Malawi

  144,875

  Assistance to the public service salaries review

  Lesotho

  64,546

  Good government—focus on results

  Mexico

  175,808

  Administrative assistance to Eastern Cape

  South Africa, Republic of

  33,804

  Strengthening Government finance and accounting functions

  Kenya

  88,180

  Assistance on rating of insurance companies

  Russia

  49,671

  Public sector development: resource allocation review

  Montserrat

  245,845

  Assistance to review United Nations Relief and Works budget management system;

  West Bank and Gaza

  25,238

  Jamaica: agency development project

  Jamaica

  1,999,480

  Russia—petroleum fiscal reform

  Russia

  941,769

  Review of support to general sales tax

  Pakistan

  18,911

  Japan
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the responsibilities of the Crown Agents in respect of the administration of (i) debt relief grants and (ii) other aid matters on behalf of the Japanese Government; and if she will make a statement. [72577]

  Clare Short
  Ownership of the Crown Agents transferred from Her Majesty's Government to an independent Foundation in March 1997. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue this matter with the Foundation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by her Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71516]
  14
  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Since 1 May 1997 the Department for International Development (DFID) has undertaken a review of international development policy, and a review of DFID' s relationship with Civil Society. The review of international development policy led to the publication of the White Paper on International Development in November 1997. A report of the consultation which DFID conducted with Civil Society, North and South, will be published shortly. Key conclusions were set out in my speech on `NGOs in a Global Future' on 13 January at Birmingham University. The costs incurred for these reviews are not separately identified, add little to the normal running costs of the department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has also set up the Development Awareness Working Group. Expenditure of this advisory group is, to date, £10,500. Preparatory documents, minutes of the meetings, and a report commissioned on "Learning from Others" are all available on the DFID website.

  No task forces have been established.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in her Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70770]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 569–70. My Department has had no such cases within the last five years.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amounts of British aid to Zimbabwe for each of the last 10 years, the projects for which it has been assigned and the conditions attached to it. [70588]

  Clare Short
  Total Overseas Development Administration (ODA) and the Department for International Development (DFID) aid to Zimbabwe in
  each of the last 10 years was:

  Year

  £000

  1987–88

  11,708

  1988–89

  15,278

  1989–90

  13,373

  1990–91

  28,937

  1991–92

  36,682

  1992–93

  39,172

  1993–94

  24,560

  1994–95

  27,343

  1995–96

  14,804

  1996–97

  11,057

  1997–98

  12,215

  ODA and DFID funded 170 projects (including Joint Funding Scheme projects cofinanced with British NGOs) in the last 10 years over the value of £100,000. I will place a list in the Library of the House.

  Specific conditions are not attached to country programmes. Individual projects are appraised and funded in the context of agreed country strategies and may have specific conditions attached, to ensure the project will be effective and sustainable.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71848]

  Clare Short
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning 16
  Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information required would involve disproportionate cost.

  Pakistan (Zina Law)
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made within the EU on the introduction of the Zina Law in Pakistan. [72511]

  Clare Short
  I have not made such representations. The Zina Law is one of five laws introduced as part of the Huddood Ordinances in 1979. The implications of the proposed 15th Constitutional Amendment are not yet clear, but it is likely that it would extend the coverage of Islamic Law in Pakistan. This Amendment still has to be passed by the Senate, for which a two-thirds majority is required. We will continue to monitor developments. More generally, the Government regularly raise their concerns with the Pakistani authorities about human rights and particularly the rights of women and girls issues; and we shall continue to do so.

  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what regard she has taken of the Zina Law's effect on Pakistan's human rights record when deciding the level of bilateral aid for that country from the UK. [72510]

  Clare Short
  The Zina Law is part of the Huddood Ordinance which has proved controversial in Pakistan since its introduction in 1979. Our development co-operation with Pakistan is clearly focused on reducing poverty, and takes careful account of human rights factors. We are working with the Government of Pakistan and other partners to make gender considerations an integral part of the development policy and planning; and we provide direct support for human rights and women's groups concerned with gender equity issues.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total number of staff(a) in her Department and (b) in each of the agencies for which she is responsible and their location in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English regions. [70476]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows. Including contract and other staff who are not classified as civil servants, my Department employs 1,656 staff located as follows:

  Location

  Staff

  (i)London

  755

  (ii) Wales

  0

  (iii) Scotland

  414

  (iv)English Regions

  0

  17
  The remaining 487 are employed overseas. I would also refer my hon. Friend to "Civil Service Statistics 1998" which is available in the Library of the House and provides a regional breakdown of civil service staff.

  My Department has no agencies.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Rental Income
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much income has been received in rents from land owned by the commission in each of the last 10 years. [70529]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I have arranged for this information to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  In order to assist my hon. Friend, however, he should note that, while the rental income figures for 1998 have not yet been finalised, for the previous 10 years the income amounted to £647.3m.

  Clergy (Stipends)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the commissioners have taken to ensure that the initial stipend is sufficient to attract new entrants to the clergy. [70532]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Clergy stipend recommendations are no longer made by the Church Commissioners, and their functions as Central Stipends Authority have been transferred by the Ministry Division of the Archbishops' Council from 1 January this year. The Central Stipends Authority gives very careful consideration to the question of stipend adequacy, including consultations with dioceses about stipend levels, and measuring the disposable income of clergy with that of other professions. A detailed review of stipend adequacy was last carried out in 1991/92, and it is likely that a further review will take place later this year.

  The number of candidates recommended for ordination in 1998 was 343, an increase of 5.6 per cent. on the previous year. This would clearly suggest that the level of stipend is not deterring candidates for ordination.

  Redundant Churches
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the number of redundant churches that the Church Commissioners have become responsible for in the last 3 years; and what the cost to them has been in each of the last 3 years. [70530]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In the 3 years to 31 December 1998, 96 churches have been declared redundant and the Commissioners have become involved in settling their future. In the same period the Commissioners have vested 15 redundant churches in the Churches Conservation Trust for preservation. The Trust now maintains 317 such churches and the Commissioners provide 30 per cent. of their costs, or about £1.07m in each of the Trust's last 3 financial years.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Admissions Code of Practice
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library copies of responses he received to the School Admissions Code of Practice Consultative Draft. [71750]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have arranged for copies of all responses received on the Draft School Admissions Code of Practice to be placed in the Library.

  Failing LEAs (Contractors)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 490, on failing LEAs, how many formal expressions of interest from organisations able to (a) perform LEA functions and (b) provide management consultancy services for LEAs had been received by 15 February. [72508]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  98 expressions of interest were received for consultancy work and 107 for the delivery of LEA functions.

  Disabled People (Interviews)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the pilot areas for the New Deal for Disabled People(a) how many initial interviews with personal advisers have been booked, (b) how many initial interviews with personal advisers have taken place, (c) how many disabled people have agreed to participate in the New Deal following an initial interview and (d) how many people obtained jobs following participation in the New Deal. [72372]

  Ms Hodge
  The Personal Adviser Service is in the early stages of pilot operation, and it is too soon to draw conclusions. Figures show that by 5 February, 1,528 interviews had been booked, 1,364 people had been seen by Personal Advisers, and some 821 people had begun to implement an employment focused action plan. We know that most people in this client group will need many months of support before they are ready to start work. However, I am delighted that so far 50 people have secured work.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72006]

  Mr. Mudie
  The services and levels of remuneration provided to my department by KPMG are given in the following table.

  Period

  Service

  Remuneration (£)

  1 May 1997–31 January 1999

  Management Consultancy

  22,291

  Policy advice

  47,880

  1 April 1996–30 April 1997

  Management Consultancy

  265,864

  19
  Complete figures for the 'corresponding period' 1 August 1995–30 April 1997, are not available in a comparable form. This is due to the different accounting systems used by the former Department of Education and the Employment Department which merged under the previous administration

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 566, on ministerial visits, which hon. Members have been informed of a planned visit to their constituency by him in the last 12 months. [72225]

  Mr. Mudie
  In accordance with paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code, hon. Members are informed in advance about planned visits to their constituencies by myself and Ministerial colleagues.

  Jobfinder Grants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Jobfinder grants have been paid in each year since the introduction of the scheme. [72184]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of this 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 Leigh Lewis to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Jobfinder Grants that have been paid in each year since the introduction of the scheme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The number of Jobfinder's Grants paid nationally in each year since the introduction of the scheme is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Grants

  1994–1995 pilot

  4,708

  1995–1996

  12,383

  1996–1997

  17,300

  1997–1998

  15,820

  1998-Jan 99 (10 months)

  8,281

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ofsted Inspectors
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that all Ofsted inspectors periodically undertake some teaching in schools; [72269]

  (2) what is the average age of Ofsted inspectors; [72270]

  (3) what is the average length of time since an Ofsted inspector last taught in a school. [72271]

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

  Pre-school Expenditure
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are made to assist with public funds capital expenditure on pre-school provision. [71966]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, over £5 billion will be available over the next three years for investment in school buildings, including facilities for under fives. Earmarked capital grant for Early Excellence Centres is available through the New Deal for Schools programme.

  "Teachers"
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of the magazine "Teachers" have been distributed to(a) teachers direct and (b) schools; what was the cost of producing the magazine; and what was the cost of distributing the magazine. [72506]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No copies have been distributed direct to teachers. A total of 334,300 copies of the magazine have been distributed to schools: teachers requested approximately 8,000 extra copies after 326,300 copies were initially distributed to schools.

  The magazine costs 9p a copy to produce and 11p a copy to distribute. It replaces the DfEE's previous publication, Schools Update. The magazine is paid for from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget which has already been earmarked for spending on publicity material.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make copies of his Department's magazine, Teachers, available in the Library. [72239]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Private-public Partnerships
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to issue draft regulations for consultation on private/public sector partnerships under section 128(1)(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. [72505]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  : It is planned to issue draft regulations for consultation in May 1999.

  School Meals
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department has issued to local education authorities on the use of genetically modified foods in school meals services. [72237]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Responsibility for determining the content of school meals rests with local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant maintained schools.

  Specialist Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he intends to publish details of the position of specialist teachers in relation to his proposals to restructure teachers' salary scales. [72507]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is no statutory definition of the term "specialist teacher".

  The technical consultation document on pay and performance management, published on 1 February 1999, sets out the Government's proposals in respect of teachers' salary structure.

  Paragraph 59 seeks views on the proposal that teachers below the new performance threshold who make additional contributions to teaching and learning, could be awarded salary supplements by the governing body on the advice of the head. Paragraph 65 proposes that, once a teacher has passed threshold assessment, that teacher's allocated salary range on the upper pay spine should reflect the nature of his or her responsibilities as well as personal performance.

  The Government propose to ask the School Teachers' Review Body, following the Green Paper consultation, to advise what guidance should be available to schools on how to reflect teacher responsibilities in setting salary levels below and above the threshold.

  Infant Class Sizes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual recurrent cost of reducing infant class sizes to a maximum of 30 pupils. [72504]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have already allocated £22 million in revenue funding in 1998–99 for the reduction of infant class sizes. Over the next three financial years, £400 million will be available to meet the revenue costs of implementing our pledge:

  1999–2000: £80 million

  2000–2001: £160 million

  2001–2002: £160 million.

  In addition, there will be £160 million over the same period to meet the capital costs of implementing the pledge.

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on the availability of childcare provision by au pairs for poorer families of the inclusion of au pairs within the minimum wage provisions. [70373]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  I do not expect the introduction of the National Minimum Wage to affect the availability of childcare provision by au pairs. The National Minimum Wage Regulations, which were laid before Parliament on Tuesday, 16 February, provide for the exclusion from coverage of workers who reside in their employer's family household, are treated as members of that family and share in the tasks and leisure activities of the family.

DEFENCE

  GEC Marconi-British Aerospace Merger
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact that the merger of GEC Marconi and British Aerospace will have on defence procurement(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) overseas; and if he will make a statement. [70501]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications of the BAe-GEC Marconi merger. [70516]

  Mr. Spellar
  The proposed merger of BAe and Marconi will be subject to regulatory approval and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment at this stage. The MOD's views on the military aspects of the merger will be given to the regulatory authorities in confidence at the appropriate time.

  Cadets
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Government's expenditure plans in relation to cadets. [70503]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  During the past twelve months my Department has received a number of representations from hon. Members and others concerning the Government's expenditure plans in respect of our Cadet Forces. The Government remain fully committed to supporting the Cadet Forces, with planned expenditure upon them in the current financial year totalling some £58m. As a further indication of our commitment, we previously announced an increase in Cadet Forces' expenditure of £3m over the next four years.

  Learning Forces Initiative
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in establishing the learning forces initiative announced in the strategic defence review. [70505]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are making good progress with our important "Learning Forces" initiative. At home and abroad, our service personnel are already benefiting from increased educational opportunities. The "Learning Forces" initiative is a powerful tool which will aid recruiting and retention.

  Staff College, Camberley
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future use of the buildings of Staff college, Camberley. [70506]

  Mr. Spellar
  Options for the future of the former Staff College Buildings at Camberley are being studied. No proposals have yet been put to Ministers.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the design and manufacture of the future large aircraft; and when it is planned to go into production. [70507]
  23
  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD received bids at the end of January for competing aircraft to meet our requirement for future transport aircraft. The Future Large Aircraft—now designated the A400M by Airbus Industries—is a candidate in this competition. UK officials are assessing these bids with other European partners. I will announce the outcome to the House once a decision has been made.

  Dr. Gwyn Prins
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with NATO officials about the decision to employ Dr. Gwyn Prins of Chatham house in the office of the NATO Secretary-General. [70508]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.

  Iraq
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are currently involved in helping to patrol the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. [70509]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Just over 2,000 service personnel are currently involved in conducting or supporting operations in the northern and southern no-fly zones. Around half of these are land-based and regularly involved in such duties; the other half are aboard HMS Invincible, whose aircraft are currently participating in the patrolling of the no-fly zones.

  Service Families
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policies his Department has for improving the quality of life for service families. [70510]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following the Strategic Defence Review, we created the Service Families Task Force. Under my leadership the Task Force is addressing the problems Service families have told us they encounter and we are pursuing measures to help them in the areas of education, employment and health. In addition, each Service is developing specific initiatives to improve the quality of life for their families.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to recommence his programme of voluntary immunisation of personnel against anthrax. [70512]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We will resume our programme of voluntary immunisation against anthrax for personnel deploying to the Gulf as soon as practicable. However, new licensed supplies of vaccine will not be available before next year.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70513]

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with Britain's land mine destruction programme. [70525]
  24
  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 7.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department is spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [70514]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence's portfolio of research into Gulf veterans' illnesses matters currently comprises two major epidemiological studies, a neuromuscular systems study, an independent review of research literature and a programme to investigate possible interactions between the medical countermeasures which were used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. So far, about £1.9 million has been spent on these studies and we estimate that they will cost a further £4 million to complete.

  Armed Forces (Overstretch)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to address potential overstretch resulting from increasing United Kingdom military commitments. [70515]

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to reduce overstretch in the armed forces. [70700]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I explained in my reply of 25 January 1999, to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow),Official Report, column 4, we are firmly committed to addressing overstretch in the Armed Forces. We are taking a number of steps to increase recruitment to the Armed Forces, which continues to improve for all three Services. We are also making efforts to improve retention in the Armed Forces. Maintenance of morale within the Armed Forces as a whole is a high priority. Any decision to increase operational commitments will be taken only after careful consideration of personnel resources.

  Ethnic Recruitment (Brent)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Army's ethnic recruitment initiative in Brent. [70517]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army's recruiting initiative in Brent was an integral part of the Army ethnic minority recruiting campaign for 1997–98, and was designed to last for three months between January and March 1998. The Brent campaign was used as a trial of a Community Partnership Model developed by a consultancy firm. Under this approach, personnel are allocated specifically to liaise with council, education and community leaders and students, in order to promote the Army as a potential career.

  Research carried out before and after this initiative shows that it was a success, and that it has created a generally more positive attitude to the Army in Brent.

  During the current financial year, the Army has included Brent in its programme of visits by recruiting teams, including the Ethnic Minority Recruiting Team,

  25
  and links with the community continue to improve. The Army is currently on target to achieve its aim that two per cent. of its recruits for the year should come from ethnic minorities.

  The Community Partnership Model will be employed at various locations around the country over the next three years, including Brent, with the aim of increasing ethnic minority recruiting to five per cent. over this period.

  Scottish Armed Forces
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Scots and (b) non-Scots are currently serving in the UK armed forces. [70518]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We estimate that some 23,000 Service personnel, or around 11 per cent. of the armed forces are Scots.

  Chamber of Shipping
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was made by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping to the strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [70519]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK Chamber of Shipping contributed to the Strategic Defence Review as part of the Review's public consultation process. Copies of submission made to the Review have been placed in the Parliamentary and selected reference libraries. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Ministry of Defence enjoys a close and productive relationship with the Chamber on defence issues, primarily through the auspices of the Shipping Defence Advisory Committee and its various working groups and sponsored discussions.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence medical services. [70520]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The future strategy for the Defence Medical Services was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 329. Work on the implementation of the proposals identified in the Strategic Defence Review and the future strategy for the Defence Medical Services is now well in hand.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 329, if the harmonising of different conditions of service within the Defence Medical Services will extend to civilian employees and co-workers. [70877]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. The work on harmonisation is focused exclusively on eliminating differences in the terms of service of Defence Medical Service military personnel undertaking similar functions.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he informed the Secretary of State for Health of his policy of direct targeting of nurses and specialist registrars for recruitment into the Defence Medical Services. [70880]
  26
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 8 December 1998.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 329, concerning the Defence Medical Services, if he will provide a breakdown of the funding to be provided over the next four years for investment in additional medical personnel and equipment. [70898]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Of the additional £140M which we announced in the SDR that we planned to spend on Defence Medical Services over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02, some £50M represents personnel costs, with the remainder attributed to a wide range of equipment, infrastructure and IT enhancements, including Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, Medical and Dental Equipment, and Medical Stores and Supplies over this period.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 329, how he intends to identify overstretch in the Defence Medical Services; and what deadlines he has set for this. [70876]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  New work is currently being undertaken in Surgeon General's Department to establish a better understanding of the maximum level of medical deployment which we can sustain on a continuous basis. The results of this work will allow us to better match resources to tasks and will help operational planners to identify not only current overstretch but also the implications of proposed new deployments. The initial work should be completed by 1 March 1999.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of a long-term deployment of forces in Kosovo on the(a) force structures and (b) budget planned by his Department. [70521]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). In the event of such an operation, where the costs cannot be accommodated within the agreed Defence Budget, I would expect to fund them through a claim on the reserve in accordance with normal procedures.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the mission statement for the Kosovo extraction force based in Macedonia. [68802]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 February 1999, c. 651]I regret that it was wrong to withhold the exact mission statement of the NATO-led Extraction force, operation "Joint Guarantor" as it had, in fact, been authorised for publication by Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (SHAPE). More recently it has been replaced by a shorter version which more accurately reflects the mission of the force in Kosovo. For completeness, the full and abbreviated versions are as set out.
  27
  Mission Statement (Full version)
  As authorised by the NAC, SACEUR will assume overall authority for the operation and Operational command or control of designated forces which will conduct an extraction of OSCE KVM verifiers and/or PDSS (Persons of Designated Special Status) in Kosovo at short notice with minimum use of force, followed by rapid redeployment of forces concerned outside the FRY and with the required reaction times.

  Mission Statement (Abbreviated version)
  On order, to conduct an extraction of OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) Verifiers and/or Persons with Designated Special Status in Kosovo in order to assure their safety.

  Airborne Stand-off Radar
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the airborne stand-off radar to enter service with the Royal Air Force. [70522]

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

  The Department is currently in the process of evaluating bids, and it would, therefore, not be appropriate to make specific comments on any aspect of the bids at this time. On current plans we aim to announce a decision on the project in the spring, and award a contract later this year. The new ISD is dependent upon the selected bid.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the contract for the Astor system. [70490]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Department is currently in the process of evaluating bids for the Full Development and Production phase of the Airborne Stand-off Radar (ASTOR) programme. On current plans we aim to announce a decision on the project in the spring, and award a contract later this year.

  NATO
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [70523]

  Mr. George Robertson
  All 16 members of NATO have now ratified the Protocols of Accession to NATO in respect of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The NATO Secretary-General wrote to the Foreign Ministers of the three countries on 29 January inviting them formally to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty. They will do so by depositing the instruments of accession with the United States Government. No date has yet been decided for their formal accession, but we expect it to be during March. The Government warmly welcome this progress and look forward to working with our new Allies.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of morale in the Territorial Army. [70524]
  28
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I am encouraged by indications that morale is maintained in the TA, and that it continues to attract new volunteers. We expect that the restructuring of the Territorial Army once implemented will, ensure that the TA is both more relevant and usable and, as a result, more satisfying to those who join.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the net effect of the review of the Territorial Army, in terms of number of units per head of the population, in(a) North West England and (b) North Wales. [69318]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  North Wales does not contain any TA units of Regiment or Battalion size. There are a number of sub-units in Northern Wales, but as sub-units vary considerably in size, a comparison between North Wales and the North West based on numbers of sub-units would not be meaningful. However, a comparison between the two regions based on numbers of TA members shows the net effect of the restructuring of the Territorial Army on each region.

  Before the review of the Territorial Army, the ratio of members of the TA to population in the North West was 1:1,023. After the review, the ratio was 1:1,366, or a net increase in the ratio of 36 per cent.

  Before the review of the Territorial Army, the ratio of members of the TA to population in North Wales was 1:1,050. After the review, the ratio was 1:1,832, or a net increase in the ratio of 74 per cent.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date Land Command submitted to Ministers the(a) first, (b) second and (c) final set of proposals for reorganisation of the Territorial Army; [69316]

  (2) on what date Land Command made the recommendation to (a) transfer HQ 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry and (b) close HQ 101 Battalion REME in Chorley. [69343]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Land Command's recommendations for the future structure of the Territorial Army were put to Ministers on 2 November 1998.

  Training
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to review the value for money of professional training in the armed forces. [70502]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We keep the cost-effectiveness of training in the Armed Forces under continual review.

  Smart Procurement
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in implementing the smart procurement programme; and if he will make a statement. [70504]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This Government are committed to improving defence procurement performance. Under our Smart Procurement initiative ten projects have just completed an encouraging pilot
  29
  phase and lessons will be reflected in a full transition plan to be implemented over the next year.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received calling for the retention of Royal Hospital, Haslar as the tri-service medical centre. [70875]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The new strategy for the Defence Medical Services was the subject of comprehensive consultation within the three single Services and their respective medical Directors General are fully committed to implementing the recommendations.

  Since the announcement of the closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received direct representations from the Trade Unions and members of the public and there has been a protest march in Gosport. The Hospital Commander is consulting with local TUs, mainly through the Whitley process; staff in HQ DSCA are responding to the letters from the public. The representations of the protest marchers were received by the Agency Chief Executive.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason it has been determined that the Royal Hospital, Haslar will remain open until 2002. [70874]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In his statement on 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 329, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear that the Royal Hospital, Haslar will remain open until new arrangements are in place. The booklet supporting the strategy announcement added that closure was unlikely before 2002. The plans of the Portsmouth and South East Hants Health Authority include the redevelopment of their Queen Alexandra Hospital site. This and the establishment of our new Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) will take a number of years. We have agreed with the NHS that the process of change should be managed and gradual to ensure that RHH is able, in the meantime, to maintain its training role for Military personnel and treatment services for both Service and NHS patients.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for choosing to establish a new Defence Medical Services Hospital Unit in Portsmouth rather than expanding the Royal Hospital, Haslar. [70878]

  RH Haslar A&E attendances 1995–98

  Year

  New attendances

  Service Follow up attendances

  Total

  New attendances

  Civilian Follow up attendances

  Total

  Totals for year

  1995

  1,690

  5

  1,695

  16,968

  30

  16,998

  18,693

  1996

  1,769

  9

  1,778

  16,713

  45

  16,758

  18,536

  1997

  1,819

  6

  1,825

  18,585

  69

  18,654

  20,479

  1998

  1,698

  5

  1,703

  19,066

  60

  19,126

  20,829

  Total

  6,976

  25

  7,001

  71,332

  204

  71,536

  78,537

  30
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The decision to close the Royal Hospital, Haslar (RHH) was announced on 14 December 1998 Official Report, columns 328–29, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence as part of the overall new strategy for the Defence Medical Services.

  Since RHH became the core Service hospital in 1994, significant changes have occurred which put the continued viability of the hospital in doubt. In particular, it has become increasingly difficult for RHH to provide the specialist levels of care demanded by local GPs, new healthcare strategies have been introduced by the local NHS Trust and the location of RHH is no longer ideal for the majority of Service personnel. Additionally, the running costs of RHH (not least the use of Grade 2 listed buildings) are significantly higher than any possible alternatives. Closer DMS co-operation with the NHS, through the Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) concept, has already demonstrated clear operational and financial advantages over isolated military hospitals. We intend to pursue this option in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect of the closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar on local employment. [70871]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Until the size and shape of the proposed Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit in Portsmouth is established it is much too early to estimate the impact of the closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar on local employment. Once it is possible to do so, the Defence Secondary Care Agency will consult closely with Trade Unions and the Employment Services to ensure that any transfers and releases are carefully managed throughout the long lead time.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the costs of upgrading NHS facilities to replace the services supplied by Royal Hospital, Haslar to the civilian population. [70873]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Department of Health. The provision of health care to the local population is the responsibility of the Portsmouth and South East Health Authority.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (i) civilian and (ii) military personnel have been treated at the Royal Hospital, Haslar since 1995(a) in total and (b) for accident and emergency cases. [70869]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Hospitals count the numbers of admissions and the number of outpatient appointments. Those details for the Royal Hospital, Haslar, along with those for accident and emergency cases, are as follows in the table, from 1 January 1995.

  Military Personnel Wastage
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the military personnel wastage rates for(a) Royal Navy (i) officers and (ii) other ranks, (b) Army (i) officers and (ii) other ranks and (c) Royal Air Force (i) pilot officers, (ii) non-pilot officers and (iii) other ranks for each of the years 1995–96,1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 to date; [71930]

  (2) how his Department defines military personnel wastage. [71929]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Military personnel wastage is defined as all outflow of trained personnel. This is usually expressed as a rate which is calculated by taking the total outflow of all trained personnel during a period as a proportion of the average number of trained personnel in the period.

  The wastage rates in the Armed Forces in the years from 1995–96 to 1997–98 and the current financial year are as follows:

  Percentage

  Total

  PVR1

  Redundancies2

  Retirements3

  Other exits4

  Naval Service Officers

  1995–96

  8.0

  1.5

  1.3

  4.7

  0.5

  1996–97

  11.8

  1.9

  5.1

  4.1

  0.7

  1997–98

  7.3

  2.5

  0.0

  4.2

  0.5

  1998–995

  6.6

  2.4

  0.0

  3.7

  0.5

  Naval Service Other Ranks

  1995–96

  9.2

  3.6

  1.1

  3.1

  1.4

  1996–97

  14.2

  5.2

  4.1

  3.3

  1.6

  1997–98

  10.4

  5.1

  0.0

  3.5

  1.8

  1998–995

  11.0

  5.5

  0.0

  3.3

  2.2

  Army Officers

  1995–96

  8.4

  2.7

  0.6

  4.5

  0.5

  1996–97

  7.8

  2.9

  0.6

  3.3

  0.9

  1997–98

  7.5

  3.6

  0.0

  3.5

  0.4

  1998–995

  8.9

  4.5

  0.0

  3.8

  0.5

  Army Other Ranks

  1995–96

  12.2

  7.3

  0.1

  2.5

  2.3

  1996–97

  11.2

  6.8

  0.1

  2.0

  2.3

  1997–98

  10.9

  6.7

  0.0

  1.8

  2.3

  1998–995

  11.4

  6.9

  0.0

  2.1

  2.4

  RAF Pilot Officers

  1995–96

  8.9

  1.2

  3.1

  4.0

  0.6

  1996–97

  11.3

  1.5

  4.5

  5.1

  0.2

  1997–98

  7.7

  2.8

  0.0

  4.6

  0.3

  1998–995

  9.0

  2.5

  0.0

  5.9

  0.6

  RAF Non-Pilot Officers

  1995–96

  10.3

  1.5

  4.2

  4.0

  0.5

  1996–97

  12.7

  1.9

  6.3

  4.1

  0.4

  1997–98

  5.3

  2.0

  0.0

  3.0

  0.3

  1998–995

  5.8

  2.7

  0.0

  2.7

  0.3

  RAF Other Ranks

  1995–96

  12.6

  3.3

  4.3

  4.3

  0.7

  1996–97

  18.0

  3.1

  9.5

  4.6

  0.7

  1997–98

  8.2

  3.6

  0.0

  3.8

  0.8

  1998–995

  8.7

  4.3

  0.0

  3.8

  0.6

  1 PVR—Premature Voluntary Release. This includes those personnel who left the Services because of pregnancy and due to marriage.

  2 Redundancies include both voluntary and compulsory redundancies.

  3 Retirements refer to personnel who have either reached the end of their commission or the end of their engagement in their Service.

  4 Other exits include deaths, medical discharges, those personnel whose services are no longer required and compassionate release.

  32
  5 For the 1998–99 financial year, the wastage rates have been estimated by taking the number of exits from 1 April-31 December 1998 and multiplying by a factor of 4/3, and dividing by the average trained strength in this period. This takes into account the fact that the number of exits during 1998–99 is for a nine-month period; the other financial years given here are for twelve-month periods.

  The rates given for the Naval Service include all personnel who were serving in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service.

  The rates given for the Army exclude those serving in the Gurkhas and those who were serving in the Royal Irish Regiment.

  Those personnel serving in Bosnia as mobilised reservists during these periods have also been excluded.

  The total wastage percentages given in the answer may not necessarily be the same as the sum of the individual wastage percentages due to rounding.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72005]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence has used the services of KPMG along with other large consultancy companies for a number of years and in the course of which they have received numerous contracts from the Department. It is not possible to provide full details of all contractual engagements which include many small contracts without incurring disproportionate cost, but the company have competitively tendered and been engaged to support a number of Departmental efficiency initiatives including Competing for Quality, the Private Finance Initiative and most recently SMART procurement, an initiative arising from the strategic defence review designed to introduce faster, cheaper and better defence purchasing. My Department's payments to KPMG pre/post 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  Date

  £

  1 August 1995–30 April 1997

  1,413,972.75 (ex VAT)

  1 May 1997–1 January 1999

  4,089,789.38 (ex VAT)

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure has been incurred by his Department in respect of the Gibraltar base in each of the last 10 years at current prices. [71692]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The costs falling to the budget of the Commander British Forces Gibraltar for the last seven years and an estimate of the costs of the current year are as follows:

  FY

  Amount (£ million)

  Current prices

  1991–92

  60.7

  74.5

  1992–93

  59.0

  69.9

  1993–94

  60.4

  69.1

  33

  FY

  Amount (£ million)

  Current prices

  1994–95

  56.5

  63.6

  1995–96

  58.6

  63.9

  1996–97

  63.0

  66.9

  1997–98

  61.3

  63.8

  1998–99

  57.6

  57.6

  Note:

  Figures uprated to current prices.

  Similar information is not available for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Staff Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [70956]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The MOD reimburses motor mileage for official travel in private vehicles at two different levels. The higher (Standard) rate is restricted to journeys which would be impracticable by public transport, taking into account the overall cost to the Department. It reflects the full costs of travel by car. The lower (Public Transport) rate is set at a level which reflects the average cost of travel by public transport and is paid for all other official travel by car.

  The rates applicable in the current tax year are as follows:

  Standard Rates of Motor Mileage Allowance

  Pence per mile

  Car engine capacity

  Up to 1000cc

  1001cc to 1500cc

  1501cc to 2000cc

  2001cc and over

  Up to 4,000 miles

  28

  35

  45

  63

  Over 4,000 miles

  17

  20

  25

  36

  Public Transport Rate of Motor Mileage Allowance

  All cars: 25.9p per mile

  MOD discourages the unnecessary use of private cars and staff are required to undertake official travel by the most cost effective means. However, the dispersed and sometimes remote locations of Defence establishments means that public transport does not always offer a suitable option.

  Northern Division
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of army personnel in the areas covered by(a) the Scottish District based in Edinburgh and (b) the Second Division based in York. [70125]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]The establishments of regular Army units in these areas is currently as follows:

  Scottish District 2,684

  2nd Division 12,969.

  Of these, some 400 personnel in Scottish District and 11,238 in the 2nd Division are in units which, though based in the area, will not be under the operational command of the General Officer Commanding the planned new northern division.
  34
  Following the restructuring of the Territorial Army announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 November 1998, the establishment of TA soldiers in these areas from June 1999 will be as follows:

  Scottish District 4,501

  2nd Division 8,574.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition to the United Kingdom Government. [70387]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the arrangements set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 423, the principal costs for the exhibition will fall to the organisers, Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd. However, my Department will make a contribution towards the cost of the missions from the 50 or so countries to be invited by Her Majesty's Government. Detailed arrangements have yet to be finalised, but we have estimated a direct cost to MOD of about £250,000. In addition, representatives of Her Majesty's Government may carry out other activities associated with the exhibition as part of their normal duties. These could only be identified at disproportionate cost.

  Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of using the PFI to fund the next generation of weapons of mass destruction designed to replace Trident. [71172]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 650.

  Airfields
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans the Government have to close or scale down his Department's airfields at(a) Lyneham, (b) Boscombe Down and (c) Brize Norton; and what discussions he has had on the possible closure of these airfields; [71580]

  (2) what proposals he has for the future of RAF Brize Norton; [71577]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on his Department's airfields in the south of England. [71579]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]I have no plans to close or scale down the airfields at Lyneham, Boscombe Down or Brize Norton. RAF Brize Norton remains the RAF's primary strategic air transport and air-to-air refuelling base. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) has determined this Government's defence policy and the tasks and roles that need to be carried out in future. These, in turn will determine our requirements, among other things for airfields in the UK. Some SDR
  35
  measures may have implications for airfields in the South of England, which will be announced and consulted upon in the normal way.

  Military Training (Indonesian Personnel)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 737, how many Indonesian military personnel are currently receiving training in the United Kingdom; at which locations they are stationed; and what is the cost to United Kingdom public funds of that training. [71949]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently five Indonesian military personnel attending courses at UK military training establishments. One Indonesian Navy officer is at the Joint Services Command and Staff College; another is on the International Principal Warfare Officer course at HMS Dryad, and three Indonesians are on courses at the Royal Military College at Shrivenham as part of a private and commercial initiative organised by Cranfield university. Participation on courses at the Joint Services Command and Staff College and HMS Dryad have been provided from the Defence Military Assistance Fund at a cost of £85,000.

  Details of Indonesian military personnel attending courses at non-military UK educational establishments are not the responsibility of my Department. However, based on the information available to us, we understand that a further four Indonesian military personnel are currently attending academic courses at non-military educational establishments in the UK. These students are on the Chevening scholarship programme at a cost of £100,000. Information on the location of those establishments has been withhold under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [71272]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department will have a number of new statutory responsibilities as a result of the implementation of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act next October. These include the provision of departmental publications in alternative formats, such as Braille or large print, access arrangements for people with disabilities to Service museums and at open days or other events held on MOD property, and the provision of suitable housing for Service personnel with disabled dependants.

  Assessment of the impact of Part III has already been set in hand, and my Department will continue to be made aware of the requirements, to ensure that the needs of members of the public with disabilities are taken into account.

  HMS Glorious
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 January 1999,Official
  36
  Report, column 574, if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the note instructing HMS Glorious to proceed to Scapa Flow to conduct the court martial. [71396]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The relevant extract of the Home Fleet War Diary (ADM 199/361) has been placed in the Library of the House. The Diary itself is available in the Public Record Office.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [71286]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Most expenditure related to disabled people by my Department is not held in a single budget but is one part of a number of different budgets, and thus cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. This includes such items as modifications to buildings and their surroundings to enable access, the provision of training material and publications in alternative formats, the use of interpreters, and disability awareness training and good practice guidance for MOD staff.

  There is, however, some central provision for staff with disabilities, amounting to around £100K in 1998–99. This covers items such as specialised equipment and associated training, and funding for a disability bursary for a member of MOD's staff.

  Liability in Tort
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation to ensure that in an action for liability in tort against the armed forces a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown. [71689]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department has no plans to introduce legislation that will affect the present position in respect of its liability in tort in cases involving members of the Armed Forces. Since the enactment of The Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which was not made retrospective, members and former members of the Armed Forces have had exactly the same rights as their civilian counterparts to pursue their employer, the Ministry of Defence, for common law compensation arising from my Department's negligence. When claims for compensation are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not my Department has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation, it is paid in accordance with common law principles.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on NATO exercises in the Barents Sea between 7 and 11 February 1974, with special reference to(a) collisions and (b) damage to NATO vessels. [71501]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department is not aware of any NATO exercises in the Barents Sea between 7 and 11 February 1974. Similarly, we are not aware of any collisions or damage involving RN vessels at that time,
  37
  neither am I aware of the presence of any RN vessels in the Barents sea at that time. MOD does not hold records concerning collisions and damage to NATO vessels.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the public opinion research commissioned by his Department into the Strategic Defence Review covered attitudes to the Defence Medical Services; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the research. [71661]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department commissioned two items of public opinion research prior to the publication of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper. The purpose of the research was to explore public attitudes, feelings and knowledge regarding the key issues covered by the Review. The research addressed attitudes to the Armed Forces as a whole and did not address the Defence Medical Services specifically. Copies of the research reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Medical Training Organisation; and what was the figure at its inception. [71909]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Medical Training Organisation currently employs 385 people. At the launch of the agency on 1 April 1997 it employed 289 people. This did not include 102 people in the Fort Blockhouse Support Unit who transferred to the Agency in October 1998.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries had armed forces involved in the 15 training exercises in Cyprus carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [71894]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The only country to have personnel involved in these exercises was Australia.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [71907]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) achieved all of the Key Targets it was set for FY 1997–98.

  The performance of the DISC is monitored by the Agency Owner's Advisory Board, which is chaired by the DISC's Owner, the Director General Intelligence and Geographic Resources (DGIGR), and which is made up of the Agency's major customers and its Non Executive Director. The Chief Executive of the DISC formally reports his progress against Key Targets to the Owners Board twice a year and also through the Owners Quarterly Performance Reviews with the Chief Executive. The first Owner's Board meeting to review 1998–99 Key Targets
  38
  met on 22 October 1998 and the second is scheduled for 8 March 1999. In his capacity as the Owner, DGIGR is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the in-service date for the 120 millimetre stretch programme replacement for the Challenger 2 CHARM ammunition system. [71491]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Challenger 2 is expected to be in service with the British Army until 2025. As a key battle winning equipment, it will be the subject of enhancements throughout its life in order that it can continue to provide an effective capability. A number of enhancement measures are already being considered for the future. Specific details regarding these enhancements are classified, for reasons of operational security.

  Aircraft Flying Hours
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 731, for what reasons the average number of flying hours for Tornado GR aircraft was lower in 1998 than in 1997. [71981]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  For Tornado GR aircraft, there was a difference of just one hour flying time per aircraft per month between 1997 and 1998. We do not consider this to be a significant difference. In such a large fleet of aircraft there are numerous minor reasons for aircraft flying varying hours, but the main one in this case was the major modifications programme that the aircraft were and are still undergoing.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 21, for what reasons the average flying hours for Tornado F3 aircraft was lower in 1998 than in 1997. [71979]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The principal reason for Tornado F3 aircraft flying fewer hours in 1998 than in 1997 is that the aircraft were undergoing a major upgrade programme.

  Infantry Exercise (Botswana)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the infantry exercise in Botswana between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; and which units took part. [72202]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  One joint infantry exercise, Exercise Diamond Cutter, took place in Botswana from 4 February to 12 March 1998. The purpose of the exercise was to provide company level dry and live firing training in a rugged environment, over extended lines of communication. B Company 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment participated on the UK side.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official

  39
  Report, column 486, on ministerial visits, which hon. Members have been informed of a planned visit to their constituency by him in the last 12 months. [72223]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In accordance with paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code, hon. Members are informed in advance about planned visits to their constituencies by me and my ministerial colleagues. Records relating to such visits are not held on a constituency basis, and could be constructed only at disproportionate cost.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71852]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary. Because this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ethnic Special Advisers
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many (i) black people, (ii) Asian people and (iii) women have been appointed by the Government as special advisers since 1 May 1997; and on what dates these appointments were made; [69652]

  (2) how many (i) black people, (ii) Asian people and (iii) women were appointed by the Government as special advisers between 1 May 1992 and 30 April 1997; and (b) on what dates these appointments were made. [69654]

  The Prime Minister
  Information in the detailed form requested is not held in respect of appointments made under the last Administration.

  At 15 February, there are 69 Special Advisers in post of which 16 are women. In response to a voluntary survey 58 have been identified as white. The other 11 have not responded to the survey. Information on the dates individuals were appointed is not held centrally.

  Joined-up Government
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define the term, joined-up Government. [69484]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The forthcoming White Paper on Modernising Government will set out the Government's vision for improving the way in which policy is developed and public services are designed and delivered. In central Government it means the different parts of Government working more closely together and across departmental and institutional boundaries than they have in the past.40
  The work of the Social Exclusion Unit and Performance and Innovation Unit are examples of this approach being applied to Government. This approach is also reflected in local authorities, government agencies, voluntary and private organisations working together.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [70420]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]For the purpose of this question, this answer includes my Office and the Cabinet Office and its Agencies.

  IT equipment, and vehicles in the fleet of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, are routinely replaced at the end of their useful life. The old equipment and vehicles are sold where it is appropriate and economic to do so.

  In addition to these replacement programmes, the Cabinet Office has sold two of the fixed related assets, one of which is listed in the vehicles category the other from the plant and machinery category. The sale realised £1,500.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71330]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]I undertake visits to all parts of the country, but records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each overseas visit in an official capacity by a special adviser since 2 May 1997, stating the cost and who paid. [69723]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]In respect of my Policy Unit, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 143.

  My Chief of Staff and Chief Press Secretary—who are employed under the terms of the amended Civil Service Order in Council—are usually part of the official party accompanying me on overseas visits.

  Information covering travel by special advisers for each Government Department over the last 20 months is not held centrally.

  Oskar Lafontaine
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister what role his Press Secretary had in the preparation and placing of Oskar Lafontaine's article in The Daily Telegraph on 11 February. [71586]
  41
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Mr. Lafontaine's office advised mine that he was writing an article for The Daily Telegraph. They sought advice on the style of the article's presentation, as I routinely ask of other Governments when I write articles for foreign newspapers.

  Poland
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to Poland. [71813]

  Title

  Appointed

  Report

  Industrial Relations

  1 March 1969

  Wound up in 1971

  The Constitution

  15 April 1969

  10 October 1973

  Environmental Pollution1

  20 February 1970

  February 1971

  Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury

  19 March 1973

  March 1978

  Press

  16 July 1974

  July 1977

  Distribution of Income and Wealth

  23 August 1974

  First 1975

  Final October 1979

  Standards of Conduct in Public Life

  6 December 1974

  July 1976

  Gambling

  24 February 1976

  July 1978

  National Health Service

  19 May 1976

  July 1979

  Legal Services

  20 July 1976

  October 1979

  Criminal Procedure

  3 February 1978

  January 1981

  Criminal Justice

  14 March 1991

  July 1993

  Long Term Care for the Elderly

  17 December 1997

  Will report shortly

  1 As standing body the Commission reports from time to time

  The Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly was asked to report within 12 months of its establishment. No deadline was set for any of the other Royal Commissions listed.

  Mackerel Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 321, on commercial fishing of mackerel, what assessment he has made of allegations of fishing by EU member states' vessels in the conservation box. [72153]

  The Prime Minister
  The majority of the Mackerel Box lies outside UK territorial waters. Vessels from other member States are free to fish there provided that they have quota and do not target mackerel using mobile fishing gear or purse seine nets.

  One of the tasks of the Royal Navy's Fisheries Protection Squadron and our aerial surveillance team is to patrol this area. In 1998, enforcement action included reporting two incidents to the Danish Authorities who later suspended the licences of the skippers concerned for one month. Four other cases were successfully prosecuted in the UK Courts.

  We have not detected any infringements of access rights in the UK territorial waters included in the box and neither have we been informed of any infringements of those access rights.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Totnes of 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 395, if the reduction of fishing effort includes decommissioning of fishing boats. [71926]
  42
  The Prime Minister
  I hope to visit Poland in the near future.

  Royal Commissions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for each Royal Commission established since 1969 the date of the establishment; what deadline was set for their report; and when they reported. [72204]

  The Prime Minister
  An up to date list is as follows.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 117.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he made to the petition presented in December, calling on Her Majesty's Government to reject the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty. [72211]

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for Gibraltar, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), sent a letter in response to the December petition organised by the Self-Determination for Gibraltar Group. In this, she made clear that we will respond to the proposals from Spain at the next Brussels Process meeting. Our commitment under the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution is that we will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Social Representation (Judiciary)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to encourage wider social representation in the judiciary. [70657]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial appointments are made solely on merit; the Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint or recommend for appointment the candidates who satisfy
  43
  the statutory qualifications and who in his opinion best meet the criteria for appointment. Without prejudice to this overriding principle, the Lord Chancellor is taking a number of measures designed to encourage more applications for judicial appointment for women and minority ethnic practitioners. These include more flexible part-time sitting arrangements, an increase in the upper age limit for appointment as an Assistant Recorder and the development of work-shadowing and mentoring schemes.

  Personal Injury Actions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the alternatives to conditional fee agreements and legal aid available to finance personal injury actions. [71975]

  Mr. Hoon
  In addition to conditional fee agreements and legal aid, personal injury actions may also be financed, amongst other things, by before the event legal expenses insurance, which is a common addition to many motoring and home contents insurance; after the event legal expenses insurance; through benefits arising from membership of organisations or trade unions and such arrangements as are agreed between solicitors and their clients.

  Legal Expenses Insurance
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the insurance companies who offer after-the-event legal expenses insurance(a) in conjunction with conditional fee agreements and (b) on a stand-alone basis; and if he will make a statement. [71973]

  Mr. Hoon
  Insurance products to underpin conditional fees have been available since July 1995. I am aware of at least eight providers of after the event insurance to underpin conditional fees. I doubt that a comprehensive list exists or can be put together given the expanding nature of this market.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the research projects which his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) plans to undertake, into after-the-event legal expenses insurance; and if he will make a statement. [71972]

  Mr. Hoon
  My officials are currently discussing proposals for the research and monitoring of the operation on conditional fee agreements, with representatives from the professions, insurance providers and consumer groups. After the event insurance may form a component of that research.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71847]

  Mr. Hoon
  In common with other departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning 44
  Government policy or activity, which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Since this is a routine part of the Department's work and is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate costs.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 457, on ministerial visits, which hon. Members have been informed of a planned visit to their constituency by him in the last 12 months. [72222]

  Mr. Hoon
  In accordance with paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code, hon. Members are informed in advance about planned visits to their constituencies by myself and my Ministerial colleagues. Records relating to such visits are not held on a constituency basis, and could be constructed only at disproportionate cost.

  Scriveners Jurisdiction
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the Scriveners Company concerning proposals to amend Scriveners' jurisdiction. [72159]

  Mr. Hoon
  Last year the Lord Chancellor undertook to review the desirability of preserving the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners over notarial work in the central London area. As a result of this review the Department received representations from the Scriveners' Company in letters dated 10 June 1998, 25 June 1998 and 3 February 1999. The Company was opposed to the abolition of the monopoly.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72011]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The total remuneration to KPMG in respect of work awarded by my Department between May 1997 and January 1999 inclusive was £276,132. The bulk of this related to an engagement which began prior to 1 May 1997. (b) The total remuneration to KPMG in respect of work awarded by my Department between July 1995 and April 1997 inclusive was £106,136.

  For the period before May 1997 complete information on the specific services performed is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Since 1997, the payments relate to two specific pieces of work, one on the Ancillary Relief Pilot Scheme, which began prior to 1 May 1997, and the second a report on the feasibility of solicitors operating a financially viable business if most money claims were pursued under conditional fee arrangements.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70006]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The Lord Chancellor's Department 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. London solicitors' firms have been used for advice on the drafting and negotiation of contracts let under the private finance initiative:

  (i) Since 1 May 1997 services have been performed by Denton Hall (remuneration £223,284 to date), Masons (£228,111 to date) and Bird & Bird (£103,926);

  (ii) In the proceeding period services were performed by Masons (remuneration: £119,276).

  The Public Trustee and Official Solicitor instruct private solicitors in their representative capacity but to provide details would involve disproportionate cost.

  CPS (Rights of Audience)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) those Crown courts where the Crown Prosecution Service has had rights of audience, (b) the dates on which those rights of audience were first granted and (c) the number of successful appeals from (i) courts where rights of audience have been so granted and (ii) Crown courts where rights of audience have not been so granted. [71499]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 February 1999] Under Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Crown Prosecutor solicitors are entitled to appear in the Crown Courts at Caernarvon, Barnstaple, Bodmin (later replaced by Truro), Doncaster and Lincoln. However, these rights were not exercised until 1991, and have only been exercised at Truro.

  On 26 February 1997, CPS solicitors (in common with other employed solicitors) were granted restricted rights of audience in the Crown Court (sitting at any location) subject to their obtaining a Higher Court Advocacy Qualification. These rights were exercised from 24 July 1998. Barrister Crown Prosecutors have never appeared before the Crown Court.

  No separate records are kept of appeals from Crown Court centres where Crown Prosecutors have been granted or have exercised rights of audience.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's 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. [71466]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Rules governing the work of the GCIS are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information 46
  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 Libraries of the House.

  No cost is incurred by my Department, its agencies and non-governmental bodies for the use of external consultants for the preparation of press releases. However, both my Department and HM Land Registry use the services of the Central Office of Information (COI) for the electronic distribution of press releases. The cost for this service to my Department was £24,561.62 for the period between May 1997 and the end of March 1999. The cost for HM Land Registry was £10,472.79 for the same period.

  Since neither staff time spent on the preparation of press releases nor stationery costs or postage incurred in their distribution are separately recorded the further information requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  The Mall
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when authorising the closing of The Mall, what steps were made within his Department to conform to the code of practice for the co-ordination of street works published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. [72268]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Viviane Robertson to Mr. Nicholas Soames, dated 22 February 1999:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch, I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to answer your Parliamentary Question about the closure of the Mall, because it is an operational matter that falls within the responsibility of this Agency.
  The code of practice is designed for use by local authorities in relation to street works in an urban setting. However, the Agency is aware of, and follows, the requirements of the code of practice and it consulted Westminster City Council, as the local highway authority, about the works.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason The Mall is to be closed for the three weeks from 15 February. [70813]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The Royal Parks Agency is closing The Mall in order to carry out necessary work to resurface the road and to effect safety improvements at accident black spots. In accordance with the advice received following consultation with Westminster City Council, as the local highway authority, and the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Parks Agency has sought to concentrate works in the shortest period in order to minimise disruption, and this unfortunately requires total closure of The Mall for three weeks.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Employment over the film education group proposed in A Bigger Picture; [71742]

  (2) what representations he has received from the film industry about (a) the Skills Investment Fund and (b) the definition of a culturally British film; [71746]

  (3) what meetings have taken place of the (a) Film Finance Forum, (b) Skills Investment Fund, (c) All Industry Fund, (d) Film Marketing Agency and (e) Film Action Committee. [71748]

  Janet Anderson
  I have discussed the progress of the film education group with Ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment and officials from our two Departments are in regular contact. There is also a DfEE representative on the group itself. Good progress has been made and the group is due to publish its report in April.

  A wide range of representations about the Skills Investment Fund has been received and discussions with key industry players are proceeding very constructively. We will make an announcement on the Fund in due course.

  We have received only a few representations on the proposed definition of a culturally British film. Several respondents argued that the existence of two film definitions, even if used for different purposes, could be confusing. It is for the industry to decide whether it should use such a definition to help target its marketing activities. The Film Policy Review Action Committee has not pursued this recommendation from A Bigger Picture.

  There have been four meetings of the Film Policy Review Action Committee and one meeting of the Film Finance Forum. The Action Committee is discussing with representatives of the distributors and exhibitors plans for establishing a Film Marketing Agency. On the All Industry Fund, the Action Committee decided that the model set out in A Bigger Picture was not practicable, but is taking forward discussions with the industry about possible support for specific initiatives in areas such as development and generic marketing.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the Treasury concerning continued tax exemptions for British films; [71749]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the £15 million production costs limit for films, for tax purposes. [72324]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department has kept the Treasury fully informed of the industry's views about the beneficial effects of the tax write-off and about the £15 million production costs limit. The Film Policy Review Action Committee has also developed a proposal for a new tax relief aimed at boosting the domestic distribution sector, which has been submitted to the Treasury.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the predicted financial savings arising from the amalgamation of British Screen, the British Film Commission and the British Film Institute. [71752]
  48
  Janet Anderson
  Last December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a new public body, British Film, will be established by 1 April 2000. British Film will deliver a coherent strategy for the development of film culture and the film industry. British Screen and the British Film Institute will not be incorporated in the new body. British Screen will retain its private-sector status, which enables it to operate effectively within the commercial industry. The BFI will retain its charitable status, which helps it to pursue its educational and cultural objectives. Discussions about the relationship between the British Film Commission and British Film are currently in progress.

  The bringing together of grant-in-aid and Lottery funding for film under one strategic body will ensure that resources are used as cost-effectively as possible and avoid duplication of expenditure.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery money(a) was spent by the Arts Council in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (b) he expects the Arts Council to have at its disposal in each of the next three years for the British film industry. [71747]

  Janet Anderson
  In 1997–98 the amount of lottery money committed by the Arts Council was £323.8 million.

  In December I announced the creation of a new public body, British Film, that will take over the role of the Arts Council of England in distributing funds for film. British Film will be established as a Lottery distributor with its own percentage stream of Lottery money from the arts good cause, guaranteeing, for the first time, a dedicated share of Lottery resources for film. The percentage will be set to ensure British Film receives at least £27 million each year from the Lottery; the figure may well be higher if the numbers playing the Lottery continue as at present.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71343]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]I have undertaken a number of visits to regions around the UK in the past 12 months as part of my Department's strategy of stimulating thinking on cultural development in the regions. Records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis as many take in more than one constituency at a time. Since 1 March 1998, and excluding the Greater London region, the following cities or regions were visited:

  Bath: 1

  Berkshire: 3

  Birmingham: 2

  Bournemouth: 1

  Cambridge: 1

  Cornwall: 1

  Doncaster: 1

  Edinburgh: 2

  Lake District: 1

  Leeds/Bradford: 2

  Luton: 1

  49

  Manchester: 5

  Newcastle: 1

  Nottingham: 2

  Oxfordshire: 1

  Peterborough: 1

  Portsmouth: 1

  Preston: 1

  Salisbury: 1

  Sheffield: 3

  Sussex: 3

  York: 1.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the running costs of the Royal Opera House are for the current financial year; and what level of public subsidy is required for the next financial year. [70358]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total expenditure budget of the Royal Opera House for the current financial year is £36,553m. For the next financial year, grant in aid from the Arts Council of England will be £16.0m. In addition the Royal Opera House will receive £5.12m in closure grant from Arts Council Lottery funds.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the regulations in respect of the granting of concessionary television licences to elderly and disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [71386]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]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 end of July this year. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations.

  Cricket and Football
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to develop facilities for(a) cricket and (b) football within Herefordshire; and if he will make a statement. [71156]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The English Sports Council (ESC) is working closely with the governing bodies of sport and others to identify ways in which to promote cricket and football in Herefordshire.

  Facility provision for cricket in Herefordshire will be included in the ESC/England and Wales Cricket Board facilities joint strategy which is to be published in the spring. Among potential projects are a new County Ground and specialist indoor cricket centre.

  The South West Region of the Football Association has recently drawn up a facilities strategy for football in Herefordshire, which examined the requirements for
  50
  football from professional down to local club level. The FA will use the strategy as part of its overall measures to promote football in the County.

  There have been two awards to cricket and three to football in Herefordshire from the lottery sports fund, totalling £2,600,000.

  Television Subtitles
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the possible future use of digital television for the broadcasting of sign language inserts and audio description services to complement the use of programme subtitles. [71378]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1996 and The Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996 set minimum targets of 10 per cent. for the audio description and 5 per cent. for the signing of digital terrestrial programme services by the tenth anniversary of the start of the service. These percentages can be amended by order and the Government intend to review these on the second anniversary of the launch of digital services.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the level of(a) public awareness of and (b) usage of closed caption television subtitles (i) amongst people with a hearing impairment and (ii) generally. [71375]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government are aware of the results of research undertaken by the RNID into the use of subtitles and we are taking this into account in our consideration of how we might increase the provision of subtitling on cable and satellite television, on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made towards establishing targets for the percentage of programmes which should carry subtitles on(a) digital, (b) cable and (c) satellite television media. [71376]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1996 sets out the minimum requirements for the subtitling of digital terrestrial programme services. There are no similar requirements on cable and satellite services and we are currently considering what might be done on a voluntary basis to increase the provision of subtitling on these services.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to promote greater awareness and use of closed caption television subtitles. [71377]

  Janet Anderson
  The need for greater promotion of subtitling both within the broadcasting industry and generally is one of a number of issues raised in my officials' meetings with those representing viewers with sensory disabilities and subtitling providers. We are currently considering how we might now take this issue forward.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate when digital, cable and satellite television media will provide subtitling to the same extent as conventional free to air television media;
  51
  and if he will ensure that such a level is reached on all digital television media before analogue television broadcasting services are withdrawn. [71548]

  Janet Anderson
  We are currently considering the Government's strategy for analogue switch off and will make an announcement in due course. We are aware of concerns over the levels of subtitling which will be available on digital services and will ensure that the needs of those who rely on these services are taken into account.

  Film Archives
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) levels of public funding of each of the regional film archives. [71167]

  Janet Anderson
  The role of the regional film archives is to collect material of relevance and significance to their areas, so that it can be made available locally for screenings, supply to television programmes and individual research. Each depends on a range of public funding from local and central government and public bodies. Support from my Department, which is channelled through the British Film Institute, is as follows:

  1998–99

  East Anglian Film Archive

  20,000

  Media Archive for Central England

  9,000

  Northern Region Film and Television Archive

  35,000

  Northern Ireland Film Commission

  10,000

  North West Film Archive

  16,200

  South East Film and Video Archive

  17,500

  TSW Film and Television Archive

  10,000

  Wales Film and Television Archive

  22,000

  Wessex Film Archive

  18,000

  Yorkshire Film Archive

  11,500

  Total

  159,200

  1Forecast for 1999–2000

  In addition, the British Film Institute currently channels some £3.8 million of its Government grant to the National Film and Television Archive which has a national remit to preserve and make accessible its collections of film and video material.

  Museums and Art Galleries
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals the Government have made to encourage those on low incomes to visit museums and art galleries. [70787]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  All charging Museums and Galleries funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport offer concessions for those on low incomes.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in December that funds have been allocated to allow free entry for children to currently charging national museums in England from April this year and for pensioners next year. This will allow those people on low incomes hitherto deterred by entrance charges to visit. We wish to broaden access further in 2001.

  Television Licences
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were(a) prosecuted
  52
  and (b) threatened with prosecution for failing to have a television licence in 1998 broken down by those aged (i) under 25, (ii) 25 to 39, (iii) 40 to 59 and (iv) 60 years and over. [71407]

  Janet Anderson
  Prosecutions for television licence fee evasion are not recorded separately from other offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and 1967, though the great majority of offences under these Acts relate to licence fee evasion. The number of prosecutions in England, Scotland and Wales in 1997, the most recent year for which information is available, was 92,749. The age breakdown (where a person's age is not known, it is recorded automatically as 25) was as follows:

  Age

  Number

  Under 25

  9,138

  25 to 39

  76,125

  40 to 59

  6,948

  60 and over

  538

  The most recent available figures for Northern Ireland are for the financial year 1996–97, when there were a total of 11,301 prosecutions, but no age breakdown is available.

  In 1997, TV licensing took 315,621 prosecution statements.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [71459]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Rules governing the work of the 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 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The cost of press releases issued since May 1997 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and its predecessor the Department of National Heritage was £46,614 excluding VAT.

  Information on press releases issued by the Royal Parks Agency, and Department's 41 Executive non-departmental Public Bodies, 9 Advisory non-departmental Public Bodies, and 5 Public Corporations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71444]

  Mr. Chris Smith [holding answer 16 February 1999]
  The Department of National Heritage, predecessor to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, was created in April 1992. Since the creation of the Department the following press releases have been issued;
  53

  Date

  Amount

  14 April 1992 to 31 December 1992

  129

  1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993

  191

  1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994

  189

  1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995

  256

  1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996

  414

  1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997

  349

  1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998

  319

  Information on press releases issued by the Royal Parks Agency, the Department's 41 Executive non-departmental Public Bodies, 9 Advisory non-departmental Public Bodies, and 5 Public Corporations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71851]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Feature Films
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the amount of(a) inward investment to and (b) total investment in the United Kingdom for feature film production in each of the last five years. [71153]

  Janet Anderson
  Information from industry sources shows the following levels of investment:

  £ million

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  a) inward investment

  229.45

  206.71

  398.03

  238.85

  219.18

  b) total investment

  435.76

  420.79

  725.59

  557.99

  487.16

  Countryside
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much land held by his Department he estimates would fall within the definition of open country as set out in the consultation document "Access to the Open Countryside" of February 1998. [71640]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has no land which falls within the definition of open countryside.

  National Lottery
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount and what percentage of the total awarded by the National Lottery Charities Board has been allocated to organisations representing older people and pensioners in each year since the Lottery's establishment; and if he will list the recipients and the amounts received. [71406]

  Mr. Banks
  To date the National Lottery Charities Board (NLCB) has made over 18,700 awards totalling over £1,004 billion. A number of these have been to organisations representing older people and pensioners. The following table is derived from NLCB's annual reports. Many other NLCB funded projects will also benefit older people even if they are not the main beneficiary group but these cannot be separately identified.

  Annual Report Year

  Value of awards to groups representing older people (£)

  NLCB total awarded (£)

  Awards to older people groups as percentage of total awards %

  1995–96

  9,015,267

  184,097,769

  4.89

  1996–97

  11,678,280

  319,236,293

  3.66

  1997–98

  50,169,146

  307,386,464

  16.32

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

  Landmark Millennium Projects
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the organisers of Landmark Millennium projects about the availability of private sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [72020]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Tourism (Farm Buildings)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants are available to enable the conversion of farm buildings for tourism in the Chorley constituency. [68476]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 318–19.

  The Redundant Building Grant Scheme, currently operated by the Rural Development Commission, can provide grants for the conversion or refurbishment of redundant buildings to bring them back into productive business use or to enhance their current business use. The European Regional Development Fund grants I referred to in my earlier answer are not available in the Chorley constituency itself.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Roofs (Latent Defect Insurance)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will meet representatives of the National Federation of Roofing Contractors to discuss the implications of the Latent Defect Insurance Scheme; [70380]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Latent Defect Insurance Scheme being launched by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors; [70378]

  (3) what plans he has to support the Latent Defect Insurance Scheme being launched by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors. [70379]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I was very interested to hear of the Latent Defect Insurance Scheme which has been prepared by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors, and am pleased to offer support for a scheme which seeks to improve standards in the construction industry.

  If there are specific issues where my Department may be able to assist, which the Federation wishes to discuss in relation to their scheme, I will be happy to consider a request for a meeting.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which body is responsible for drawing up the proposal for the A3 improvements at Hindhead; and if he will publish the schedule for the necessary decisions and announcements relating to that proposal; [70809]

  (2) when he plans to visit Hindhead to examine the A3 and its effects on business and the environment. [70808]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have no plans currently to visit Hindhead. We already recognise that there is a serious congestion problem there and, in December of last year, announced our intention that an A3 Hindhead study would form part of a group of road based studies proposed to start within the next two years.

  Constituency Visits
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which parliamentary constituencies he has visited in the past year to discuss road proposals. [70807]

  Mr. Prescott
  Paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers should inform hon. Members in advance of planned visits to their constituencies. Ministers in the Department undertake visits to all parts of the country and discuss various subjects of local and national interest, but records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  London Underground (Disabled Access)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve access for disabled people to London Underground services. [70726]
  56
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to a fully accessible public transport system. However, full accessibility cannot happen overnight, especially on London Underground, where most of the stations are old and not designed with access for mobility impaired people in mind.

  London Transport has been developing a scheme to improve access to a core of 68 Underground stations and plans shortly to consult the Disabled Peoples Transport Advisory Committee, London Boroughs and local disability groups about these plans.

  The Jubilee line extension will be fully accessible and will mean that wheelchair users will be able to travel from mainline stations at Waterloo, Stratford and London Bridge stations to the Millennium Exhibition at North Greenwich.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of those railway stations which have been(a) refurbished and (b) restructured in the last five years do not have access for the disabled. [70802]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All new stations planned or in build will provide full unassisted wheelchair access. In addition, Railtrack are on course to meet the target, set in the Network Management Statement 1998, of providing unassisted wheelchair access at a further 119 stations this year.

  On refurbishment and restructuring projects information is available only for those stations which are included in Railtrack's Station Regeneration Programme. Of the 786 stations which have been subject to such works, 607 are not able to offer unassisted wheelchair access to all platforms. Wheelchair access may be available at these stations, however staff assistance will be required because of goods lifts, barrow crossings, or other barriers to independent access.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [70772]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 567–70.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [71292]

  Mr. Meale
  Amounts within the Department's budget for 1998–99 that can be attributed to spending on disabled people are as follows:
  57

  (a) the Department's Mobility Unit is responsible for transport policy as it affects the mobility of disabled people and has a net running cost budget of £950,000 and a net programme budget of £477,000;

  (b) there are some specific allocations within the Department's housing programmes as follows: (i) £60 million of disabled facilities grants to help disabled people adapt their homes to enable them to live more independently; (ii) £50,000 available through the housing research programme project "housing options for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems"; and (iii) around £17 million of the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme is being spent on disabled people. In addition the Housing Corporation's revenue funding programme for supported housing schemes includes provision for the disabled;

  (c) about £4.6 million is available through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme to households specifically on the basis of a disability benefit;

  (d) the Department administers the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 with a budget of £8,269,000; and

  (e) the Air and Environment Quality air pollution information service provides information on the levels of air pollution, a forecast of levels and advice on health at a cost of about £100,000 a year.

  Many of the Department's other programmes are of benefit to disabled people, although it is not possible specifically to attribute such expenditure, or to specify how much it represents as a proportion of total departmental spending.

  The Department spends approximately £45,000 a year on providing technical aids for its own central staff who are disabled and about another £9,000 for the disability access survey for its central buildings and other improvements.

  A3
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) miles of single carriageway road and (b) sets of traffic lights are on the A3 between London and Portsmouth. [71159]

  Dr. Reid
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, dated 22 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked Lawrie Haynes, Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your recent question about how many miles of single carriageway and how many traffic lights there are on the A3 between London and Portsmouth. I am replying in Mr. Haynes' absence.
  The A3 around Hindhead in south west Surrey is the last remaining section of single carriageway between Wandsworth in south west London and Portsmouth. There are twenty sets of traffic lights on the A3 between London and Portsmouth, sixteen in Wandsworth, three in Kingston and one at Hindhead.

  Resident Students
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial adjustments were made to each local education authority for 1999–2000 in respect of(a) net movement of resident students into other local education authorities and (b) resident students in the non-maintained sector. [71708]

  Ms Armstrong
  Financial adjustments between authorities in respect of pupils without special educational needs educated in the maintained sector outside their authority of residence ('recoupment') ended on 31 March 1995.

  The Education Standard Spending Assessments use estimates of resident pupils. These are defined in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 on pages 40–41.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) of 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212, if he will list the consultancy firms with contracts to provide advice jointly to London Transport and the Government on the implementation of his public/private partnership plans for London Underground. [71763]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The main consultants working on the London Underground Public-Private Partnership (PPP) are:-

  PricewaterhouseCoopers (financial)

  Freshfields (legal)

  Ove Amp and Partners (engineering)

  Arthur Andersen (operations entity design)

  PA Consulting (infrastructure entities design and financial modelling)

  Homagold & Hills (project management)

  Richard Ellis (property)

  Sedgwick (insurance)

  Bacon & Woodrow (pensions).

  All of these firms are employed by London Transport, but their advice is available to the Government, and Ministers and officials can, through London Transport, ask them for advice on matters relating to the PPP.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce legislation for the control of light pollution. [71683]

  Mr. Raynsford
  External lighting may require planning permission, particularly, for example, where installations are substantial and affect the external appearance of a building. Local authorities may also attach conditions to planning permissions for new development which cover the design and operation of lighting systems. These conditions can control the type and siting of light installations, and place restrictions on the spread and duration of light. The guidance, "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards good practice", issued in 1997 jointly by my Department and the Countryside
  59
  Commission, gives further advice on what can be done to lessen the intrusive effects of lighting schemes. In addition, advice on floodlighting is given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17, 'Sport and Recreation'. My officials are also in discussion with the DIY industry to identify ways in which their customers might be made more aware of the problems which badly positioned lighting can cause. Our view is that the present combination of planning controls and practical advice is the best way forward and we are not proposing to introduce further legislation in this area.

  Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the one day meeting of experts organised by the Institute of Environment and Health, at the request of his Department, to discuss the links between congenital anomalies and hazardous waste landfill sites. [71691]

  Mr. Meale
  The one day meeting of experts was held on 26 January 1999 at the joint request of my Department and the Department of Health. Experts in toxicology, epidemiology, exposure assessment and landfill technology were present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss recent research findings, to identify gaps in knowledge base, and to agree and prioritise further research requirements.

  The meeting made a number of recommendations for further research work. We are currently considering the best way to take forward these recommendations.

  London to Portsmouth Rail Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on road and rail traffic levels between London and Portsmouth of(a) an improvement in the quality of the rail rolling stock and (b) an increase in the frequency of main line rail services; [71559]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the investment required to reduce main line rail journey times from Portsmouth to London by (a) 10 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. [71562]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has made no such assessments.

  Rolling Stock (Connex)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will discuss with the rail franchising director the condition of the rolling stock operated by Connex services into Portsmouth; [71564]

  (2) what representations he has received about the condition of the rolling stock operated by Connex services to Portsmouth. [71523]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No specific representations have been received on the condition of the rolling stock operated by Connex services to Portsmouth, although general complaints about performance may have included reference to dissatisfaction with the condition of trains. The Health and Safety Executive has published draft 60
  regulations for consultation which would require the replacement or modification of mark 1 rolling stock by 1 January 2003 and, if modified, the stock to be rebodied or replaced by 2007. We are currently considering these proposals.

  London to Portsmouth Road Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on capital investment needs of the main railway line from Portsmouth to London. [71558]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has received no such representations.

  Portsmouth Ferry Port (Rail Interchange)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in support of the creation of a passenger rail interchange at Portsmouth Ferry Port. [71563]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 235.

  The Secretary of State has received no representations in support of the creation of a passenger rail interchange at Portsmouth Ferry Port.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he proposes to give to local authorities as to the(a) targets for road casualty reductions and (b) road safety strategy to be included in the first local transport plans that they are required to draw up. [71478]

  Dr. Reid
  The Department issued draft guidance on local transport plans on 12 November 1998. This includes advice on the preparation of road safety strategies and the adoption of targets for road casualty reduction. The guidance emphasises the need to consider road safety in all aspects of the local transport plan. The guidance is intended both as interim advice to enable authorities to make a start on preparing their plans, and as a draft for consultation. The consultation period has now closed and we are in the process of preparing revised guidance, due for publication in the Spring.

  Hush-kit Aircraft
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the use of hush-kit aircraft in Britain and Europe after 2002; and if he will make a statement. [71539]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received representations from three sources about the draft EU regulation on recertificated aircraft, raising specific concerns about the provision on re-engined aircraft. We do not believe that it would be possible to meet these concerns without undermining the aims of the regulation, which we support.

  Local Authority Expenditure (Education)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list how much each local authority spends on education as a percentage of their total budget. [71547]

  Ms Armstrong
  The requested information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Conditions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on identifying the locations of the worst housing conditions (i) in general terms and (ii) in respect of energy efficiency. [71405]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department carries out a five-yearly English House Condition Survey that assesses the number and distribution of dwellings nationally and regionally in poor condition and with poor energy standards. The last survey was carried out in 1996 and another is planned for 2001. As the survey is only a (representative) sample of the stock it cannot identify which particular local areas have concentrations of poor housing conditions or low energy efficiency levels. Local authorities themselves assess housing conditions and energy efficiency levels in their areas to produce locally based strategies.

  Housing Stock (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information local authorities have provided to him on the relative energy efficiency of their housing stock. [71404]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are expected in their Housing Investment Programme submission to demonstrate that they have an energy conservation policy as part of their housing strategy. They are also required to set out, in energy conservation reports prepared under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, their plans for improving the energy efficiency of all residential accommodation, and they now provide an annual return covering a range of standard information on energy efficiency improvements.

  Bus Grant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the impact of increases in bus grant on the pattern of(a) rural bus services, with particular reference to passenger usage, (b) frequency and (c) routings. [71637]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will be gathering information from local authorities in the coming months to assess the impact of the first year's funding for rural bus services announced in the last Budget. We will carry out a similar review in subsequent years. This information will inform future policy on this matter.

  PFI Waste Management Schemes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the operational effectiveness of waste 62
  management schemes funded to date under the PF1; and what plans he has to develop more PH-backed waste management schemes. [71168]

  Mr. Meale
  Five PH waste management schemes have been approved but only 3 contracts have been signed and the most advanced of these is at a very early stage of implementation. Given this and the fact that each of the contracts is for 25 years, it is too early to judge their effectiveness.

  We will continue to approve PH waste management schemes if funds are available and they meet the Department's criteria for endorsement.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received a copy of the Commission Communication on the present situation regarding prospects for radioactive waste management in the European Union, COM(1998) 799, dated 11 January 1999; what assistance the United Kingdom nuclear authorities gave to the Commission in its preparation; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the report for radioactive waste management in the United Kingdom. [71178]

  Mr. Meale
  A copy of the report was received in January this year. United Kingdom input to the report was co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with assistance from producers of radioactive waste. The international perspective provided by the report may prove useful in considering how to respond to the report on nuclear waste management which the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology is expected to produce shortly.

  HOMES
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many staff were employed by HOMES for each year from 1993; [71678]

  (2) what was the total cost of HOMES for each year from 1993. [71677]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost to DOE, now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—of HOMES and the number of staff HOMES has employed since 1993 are as shown in the following table.

  Financial year

  Total HOMES expenditure (£)

  DOE/DETR grant (£)

  Average number of staff employed

  1993–94

  2,271,224

  1,667,067

  35

  1994–95

  2,201,070

  1,646,000

  40

  1995–96

  2,088,727

  1,672,900

  40

  1996–97

  2,075,138

  1,975,138

  45

  1997–98

  2,457,485

  1,593,997

  52

  1998–99

  12,183,223

  1,535,063

  48

  1 Forecast

  Source:

  Apart from 1998–99, figures derived from HOMES published accounts.
  63
  HOMES also generate their own income and have received some smaller amounts of grant support from other Departments and the Housing Corporation during this period.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to ensure that the air pollution targets set out in the National Air Quality Strategy will be met. [71911]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last month the outcome of the Government's review of the National Air Quality Service. We are now consulting on our proposals to amend the Strategy in order to deliver our commitment to cleaner air.

  National policies will go a significant way to meeting our air quality objectives throughout the country. However, action at local level will also be essential since air quality has an important local dimension which needs

  South Cambridgeshire: April 1997 to March 1998

  Grid reference

  Monitoring site

  Environment

  Nearest road

  East

  West

  Annual mean Parts per billion(ppb)

  Histon 1N

  Kerbside

  Glebe Way (B1049)

  5440

  2635

  20

  Histon 2N

  Intermediate

  Narrow Close

  5440

  2641

  15

  Histon 3N

  Background

  Narrow Lane

  —

  —

  12

  Histon 4N

  Background

  The Coppice, Impington

  4552

  2620

  14

  Cambridgeshire: April 1997 to March 1998

  Grid reference

  Monitoring site

  Environment

  Nearest road

  East

  West

  Annual mean Parts per billion(ppb)

  Cambridge 1N

  Kerbside

  Parker Street

  5454

  2584

  34

  Cambridge 2N

  Intermediate

  Abbey Road

  5462

  2589

  21

  Cambridge 3N

  Background

  Cockburn Street

  5466

  2577

  15

  Cambridge 4N

  Background

  Oak Tree Avenue

  5459

  2601

  16

  Further information and daily data up to September 1998, can be obtained via the World Wide Web, at DETR's Air Quality Archive at http://www/environment.detr.gov.uk/aiq/aqinfo.htm.

  The Government's policies with respect to improving air quality in the UK were published on the 13 January, in the "Report of the Review of the National Air Quality Strategy". Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give details of the 1999–2000 charging scheme for local air pollution control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [72364]

  Mr. Meale
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991.

  With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for
  64
  a focused local approach. Local Authorities are therefore required to carry out periodic reviews of air quality in their areas and to assess present and likely future air quality against the objectives set out in the Strategy. Where any of the objectives are not likely to be met by 2005, authorities are required to designate Air Quality Management Areas and prepare and implement action plans in pursuit of the objectives.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the average levels of air pollution affecting residential homes adjacent to(a) motorways, (b) major trunk roads and (c) minor trunk roads in South Cambridgeshire in 1997–98. [71912]

  Mr. Meale
  There are eight Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Diffusion Tube Network sites in or near Cambridge (sites and annual mean levels recorded in the following table). None of the sites are adjacent to motorways or trunk roads although the Cambridge Parker Street site is in the busy town centre.

  the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Wales have made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 1999.

  The level of fees and charges will be increased by approximately 20 per cent. to cover an identified shortfall in recovery of costs. The main changes are that the standard application fee is increased by £215 to £1,280, the substantial change fee is increased by £135 to £815, and the annual subsistence charge is increased by £130 to £790.

  The scheme will be laid before both Houses and copies placed in the Libraries.

  Night Flights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the departmental consultation document relating to night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports; and if he will publish a breakdown by constituency of the responses. [71915]
  65
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The closing date for responses was 12 February 1999 and analysis of them is proceeding. I will comment on the responses when announcing the decision and will make available for inspection, following the decision, those responses where confidentiality has not been requested. It is not the intention to prepare a breakdown of responses by parliamentary constituency, as this would involve disproportionate cost. Responses from organisations do not relate to particular districts, but consideration will be given to making available a breakdown of responses from individuals by postal district.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to commission independent research into the effects of night flights on people living around Heathrow Airport. [71922]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our intention to commission a new research trial on the effect of night-time aircraft noise on sleep disturbance was announced on 27 February last year, when the first stage consultation on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports was published. The trial is expected to focus on methodologies, assessing experimental and analytical techniques—and their limitations—which are related to the measurement of sleep disturbance. The findings of the trial will help us decide whether to proceed with a full-scale study of sleep disturbance, and to determine what should be included in any such study. The trial will be based at Manchester Airport, which provides a suitable combination of densely populated communities close to the airport with a spread of aircraft noise throughout the night. It may be extended to Heathrow if actual noise levels in the early morning at Manchester prove insufficient for the purposes of the trial. If, on completion of the trial, we decide to continue with more detailed research, the question of where that study would be based is one of many issues which would need to be considered at that time, based on objective research considerations.

  A steering group, which includes community and industry representatives, has been established to oversee the trial and expert advice is obtained from a technical group made up of specialists in relevant scientific fields. Further peer group advice will also be sought from a panel of international experts. Detailed proposals for the trial will be announced following completion of discussions with these groups.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the studies used in preparing the latest departmental consultation document on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. [71914]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The second stage consultation paper on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, issued on 17 November 1998,Official Report, column 492, refers at Appendix D to the following studies:

  1. "Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: final report", DORA Report 8008 (£3.50)

  2. "Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: designated night data for sites surveyed in the main phase of the study", DORA Communication 8004 (£1.50)

  3. "Noise Disturbance at Night near Heathrow and Gatwick Airports: 1984 check study", DR Report 8513 (£2.50)

  66

  4. "Noise Disturbance at Night near Heathrow and Gatwick Airports: Critique of the technical issues raised by consultees during the 1986 Public Consultation", DORA Report 8715 (£3.00)

  5. "Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance", Department of Transport 1992 (£11.00)

  6. "Night Noise Contours: a feasibility study", National Physical Laboratory 1997.

  Also referred to in the consultation document are:

  7. "Night Time Ground Noise", DORA Report 9850 October 1998 (£20.00)

  8. "Assessment of Revised Heathrow Early Mornings Approach Procedures Trials", DORA Report 9823, November 1998; and

  9. historical daytime noise exposure contours for Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted airports prepared by DORA on behalf of the Department; those for 1996 being the most recent available at the time the consultation paper was issued.

  Reference was also made to the "Heathrow Runway Alternation Trials—Research Among Local Residents" Final Report, March 1998, prepared by MVA for the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee. In addition the consultation document includes information on such matters as usage of the noise quotas and movement limits since October 1993 and the main points made in the responses to the preliminary consultation, some of which referred to studies carried out.

  Advice on how to obtain copies of each document or to consult reference copies free of charge, was given in the consultation document.

  Northumberland National Park Committee
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what qualifications are required for appointment to the Northumberland National Park Committee, with particular reference to residence within England. [71741]

  Mr. Meale
  Our approach in respect of Secretary of State appointments to the National Park Authorities is to encourage candidates to be put forward from as broad a range of backgrounds as possible. The aim is to achieve both a strong and a diverse membership. Secretary of State appointees are expected to represent the national interest and, although there is no specific requirement to be resident in England, preference will be given wherever possible to those candidates who combine the qualities sought with local association to the Park to which they seek appointment.

  National Public Transport Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what role National Rail Inquiries will play in the one point of inquiry national public transport information system; [72574]

  (2) what progress he has made in meeting the commitment in paragraphs 3.73 and 3.74 of the Transport White Paper in respect of the creation of a national integrated journey timetable; [72572]

  (3) how the provision of a one point of inquiry national public transport information system is to be funded. [72573]

  67
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our aim is to develop a framework for public transport information that builds on existing local and national sources—including the National Rail Enquiry Service—and extends them systematically across the country. At my request, the relevant parties are working together under the auspices of the Confederation of Passenger Transport. Decisions have yet to be taken on the preferred system architecture and funding, but the Department has given over £1 million of credit approvals this year to enable local authorities to play their part, and has invited further bids for funding in 1999–2000.

  Home Buyers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his discussions with mortgage lenders and insurers on protection for home buyers. [72509]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government are committed to working with mortgage lenders to encourage greater provision of flexible mortgage products and better protection for home buyers. A mortgage is one of the biggest financial commitments of most people's lives. Home buyers need to think seriously about how they would meet their mortgage payments if they lost their income. Help with mortgage payments through the benefits system (Income Support Mortgage Interest) is confined to people receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance; most claimants wait for nine months before Income Support Mortgage Interest is paid. Home buyers therefore need better, more effective insurance to protect their mortgage payments against unforeseen periods of financial difficulty caused by problems such as accidents, sickness and unemployment. Following discussions with the Government, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers intend to announce tomorrow a new benchmark for mortgage payment protection insurance products which all lenders and insurers will need to meet or exceed. The Government welcome this move, which paves the way for higher quality, better value insurance operating alongside state benefits to provide a more effective level of protection. Everyone with a mortgage or applying for a mortgage should consider carefully whether mortgage payment protection insurance is suitable for their needs and circumstances. If it is, they should seek professional information and advice on a policy which meets their requirements and offers good value.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 603, concerning Best Value, if the provision of services for the Greater London Assembly will be covered by the Best Value regime. [72595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Bill allows for the Secretary of State to provide, by Order, for the GLA to be a best value authority in relation to those specified functions of the Authority which it does not exercise through the Mayor. This includes services for the Assembly which will be provided through the GLA's Chief Administrative Officer.

  Signing Routes (M25)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 439–40, what representations he, or the Highways Agency, has received concerning the siting of individual signs. [72625]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 22 February 1999:
  The Minister for Transport, Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the representations which we or the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions had received, in respect of the siting of individual direction signs under the London Primary Route network Signing project.
  Over 900 signs have been replaced since work began and we have received only 13 representations, mainly from local residents, about the siting of six of them. Of these, two duplicated representations were sent to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They include those that the London Borough of Sutton, a local Councillor and yourself made on behalf of one of your constituents.
  The representations have focused on peoples concerns about replacement direction signs being erected nearer their property. As a result of the representations, one sign has been moved and consideration is being given to the location of two other signs.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what detailed plans are in place for(a) the provision of Channel Tunnel Rail Link Eurostar passengers services to Staffordshire and (b) the opening of rail freight routes on the West Coast Main Line through the Channel Tunnel; [72340]

  (2) when he expects the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to reach Staffordshire specifically in relation to Eurostar passenger services and wider freight services. [72339]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  (a) My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister received a report from Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd (ICRR), the consortium appointed by London and Continental Railways to manage and operate Eurostar (UK) Ltd, on 13 November 1998 entitled "Review of Regional Eurostar Services". On 28 January 1999, Official Report, column 340, he announced the commissioning of a thorough and independent review. The terms of reference address a wide range of key issues including, in particular, the study by ICRR and the alternative proposals for regional Channel Tunnel services put forward by the Virgin Group.

  (b) Railtrack are responsible for the maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the rail network, including any rail freight gauge upgrade of the West Coast Main Line. However, any such upgrade would require significant amounts of Government grant. No grant application has been received.

  Local Agenda 21 Strategies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he
  69
  will make a statement clarifying the relationship between Local Agenda 21 strategies and the planning process; [72053]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that local authorities' Local Agenda 21 strategies are integrated with unitary development plans; [72047]

  (3) what representations he has received from local authorities about the legal status of Local Agenda 21 strategies in the determination of local planning applications. [72052]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the statutory development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local planning authorities are required to have regard to national and regional planning guidance when preparing their development plans. National and local strategies, including Local Agenda 21 strategies, may also inform the plan preparation process to the extent that they have a bearing on land use planning matters. Such strategies may also relate to matters which are, or which are capable of being, material considerations to be weighed when local planning authorities take decisions on individual planning applications. Local Agenda 21 strategies do not, however, form part of the statutory planning system.

  The Local Agenda 21 process is a useful means of engaging members of the public in identifying ideas, issues and interests which can add value in shaping development plan policies and proposals.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will indicate(a) how many and (b) what proportion of local authorities have adopted Local Agenda 21 strategies. [72055]

  Mr. Meale
  The most recent survey of Local Agenda 21 activity in the UK was carried out in autumn 1998 by the Local Government Management Board. Of the authorities who responded 129 (35 per cent.) had produced Local Agenda 21 strategies. A further 187 (52 per cent.) were committed to producing a strategy by December 2000 to meet the Prime Minister's target.

  Journey Costs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the statistics from the Department of Transport and Infrastructure at Imperial College, London, concerning the change in real terms in the costs of journeys by(a) public transport and (b) car in the past 20 years. [71197]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The statistics were taken from my Department's publication "Transport Statistics Great Britain". They show that bus and rail fares have increased by 25–27 per cent. in real terms over the past 20 years. Total motoring costs fell by 10 per cent. to 1990, but have increased since then to the levels of 20 years ago. Labour costs, which rise faster than average prices, tend to have had a greater influence on the costs of public transport and car maintenance than on car purchase costs, which have fallen in real terms because of improved 70
  productivity. Duty is the main component of car fuel costs. Since 1990, increases in duty have caused fuel costs to rise more rapidly than public transport fares.

  Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will revoke the decision of the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 78 and Schedule 6 appeals by Fats & Proteins (UK) Ltd. application Nos. 97/01177/FUL and 97/01178/FUL. [72231]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State uses his powers to revoke planning permission only in exceptional circumstances. These particular planning decisions were reached only after a public inquiry had been held to examine the appeals.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71853]

  Mr. Meale
  In common with other Departments, the work of the press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this work is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Education SSAs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the SSA levels for(a) education provision and (b) social services provision in North Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [72161]

  Ms Armstrong
  During the consultation period on the Local Government Finance Settlement for 1999–2000, Ministers received four formal representations from Members of Parliament or from the local authority concerning the SSA level for social services funding in North Yorkshire. No representations were received concerning the SSA level for the education budget.

  All of the issues raised in the representations have been taken into account in the final settlement.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to visit North Yorkshire to discuss(a) education and (b) social services SSA levels for North Yorkshire County Council. [72158]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Deputy Prime Minister has no plans at present to visit North Yorkshire to discuss these matters.

  Air Services Agreements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress there has been in the UK-US air services negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [72162]

  Dr. Reid
  The last round of formal negotiations on full liberalisation of UK/US air services ended abruptly on 7 October when the US team decided to terminate the discussions. A round of informal exploratory discussions on liberalisation is scheduled for 18–19 February in London. Meanwhile, routine negotiations on matters such as increases in the allowable capacity on UK/US routes under the Bermuda 2 agreement continue as normal.

  Flight Paths
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what variations in flight paths and regulations of night flights have been made in the last two years over, or in relation to, flights above the(a) county boroughs of (i) Thurrock and (ii) Southend, (b) the county of Essex and (c) the London boroughs to the east of Central London; and when the relevant hon. Members were consulted. [72147]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The routes followed by aircraft taking off from City and Stansted airports, and those followed by aircraft inbound to the Lambourne holding position (stack) over SW Essex used by aircraft waiting to land at Heathrow, have not changed in the last two years. Aircraft preparing to land at City, Heathrow and Stansted are managed tactically by air traffic control within controlled airspace set aside for the purpose which also has not changed over this period. Much of the airspace over Essex, including that over Thurrock below an altitude of 2500ft and over Southend below an altitude of 3500ft, does not form part of the controlled airspace of the London Terminal Control Area and is available for use by general aviation.

  Restrictions on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports have not been changed in the last two years, but future arrangements to apply from 31 October 1999 were the subject of a consultation paper issued by my Department on 17 November 1998, Official Report, column 492, with a closing date for responses of 12 February 1999. The consultation paper included details of the Early Morning Landings Trial for aircraft approaching to land at Heathrow from the east. As a result of the trial, which began in September 1995, more aircraft are joining Heathrow's instrument landing system at higher altitudes further from touchdown, including over London boroughs east of Central London, but there have been no variations to flight paths over Essex.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects Croydon Tramlink to be fully operational. [71950]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Croydon Tramlink is being constructed and will be operated under a 99 year concession agreement awarded by London Transport to Tramtrack Croydon Limited.

  I understand that Tramtrack aim to open the system in November 1999.

  London First
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding(a) London First and (b) London First Centre has received from his Department per annum since 1992; and for what purposes the funding was specified. [72164]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Contributions have been made to several London First initiatives. I will write to the hon. Member with full details and place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) London First and (b) London First Centre since 1992; and for what purposes. [72168]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since 1992 the Department has had one member of staff seconded to London First, between May 1996 and April 1998, to manage a project promoting manufacturing industry in London. No staff have been seconded to the London First Centre.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sums the Government Office for London has contributed towards the London First/Centre for Management of Traffic and the Environment study being undertaken by Halcrow Fox on road pricing. [72169]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government Office for London has contributed £5,000 to this study.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72007]

  Mr. Meale
  The following services have been performed by KPMG for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:

  £

  Services

  1 May 1997–1 February 1999

  1 August 1995–30 April 1997

  Research Consultancy

  404,328.00

  —

  Specific Consultancy (i.e. Privatisation)

  95,211.65

  —

  IT Consultancy

  —

  45,264.00

  General MNGT Consultancy

  192,541.76

  129,301.00

  Total

  692,081.41

  174,565.00

  Car Headlights (Migraines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate reports that car headlights are setting off migraine attacks. [72517]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I can confirm that the possibility of new car headlights setting off migraine attacks is being considered as part of a current research project that the Department is carrying out into glare from headlights.
  73
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the effect on migraine sufferers of the use of intense white lights on car headlights. [72518]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has received two representations on this issue. The possibility of new car headlights setting off migraine attacks is being considered as part of a current research project that the Department is carrying out into glare from headlights.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish all the advice which he has received from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment since 1 May 1997. [72233]

  Mr. Meacher
  All the advice which I have received from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is published on the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The agendas and Minutes of ACRE meetings are also published on the DETR website.

  National assets register: Sales up to November 1997

  Part of DETR

  Type of asset sold

  Amount realised (£)

  DETR (Central)

  RTCC Cardington, Bedfordshire—Land only

  512,000

  5 No Mobility Vehicles

  3,695

  The Highways Agency

  128 No Properties retained for construction

  10,147,000

  1,019 No Surplus properties

  78,417,000

  Various items of Plant and Equipment

  76,000

  DVLA

  Furniture (3 cabinets and 1 desk)

  36

  48 No Laser Printers

  828

  Miscellaneous Catering equipment

  1,457

  DSA

  6 No Properties

  1,150,000

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Various items of Plant and Equipment

  4,304

  12 No Cars

  8,474

  3 No Vans

  4,926

  MCA

  GP Boat

  4,400

  Vehicles/Trailers

  38,367

  1 No Property

  57,500

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Various Fixtures and Fittings

  21,513

  PINS

  Computer Hardware (various)

  18,175

  Commission for the New Towns

  Loans and Mortgages, Built Assets, and Land awaiting development

  11,197,000

  English Nature

  1 No Building

  73,000

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  Machinery, Equipment, Computers and Plant, Vehicles, Furniture and Office Machinery1

  11,000,000

  North Hull Housing Action Trust

  1 No Building

  600,000

  Rural Development Commission

  Property, Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings

  857,000

  Traffic Director for London

  Furniture

  1,000

  British Waterways Board

  Property, Plant and Equipment

  12,871,000

  London Regional Transport

  Land and Property, Plant and Machinery

  33,300,000

  OFWAT

  IT equipment, and Fixtures and Fittings1

  13,000

  Ordnance Survey

  Vehicles1

  18,000

  Total

  150,375,675

  1Approximate value

  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions of(a) foreign and (b) EU lorry drivers arose in 1997–98 as a result of the Vehicle Inspectorate's examination of goods vehicles. [69269]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]In 1997–98 the Vehicle Inspectorate recorded one prosecution of a driver who gave his place of residence as outside the EU, 5,082 prosecutions of drivers who gave their place of residence as inside the EU and one prosecution of a driver whose place of residence was unknown. The Vehicle Inspectorate's records do not include prosecutions by the police or Procurators Fiscal as a result of Vehicle Inspectorate checks.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [70419]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]Details regarding asset sales from items listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997 are in the table.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71331]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers should inform hon. Members in advance of planned visits to their constituencies. Ministers in the Department undertake visits to all parts of the country and records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which the Minister of Transport has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71350]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers should inform hon. Members in advance of planned visits to their constituencies. Ministers in the Department undertake visits to all parts of the country and records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Documents (Mileage Information)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the compulsory inclusion of mileage information on vehicle documents. [71076]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]We are committed to providing the public with more information about second hand cars and, as part of the initiative to reduce vehicle crime, we are currently considering how best to introduce a scheme for the compulsory inclusion of mileage information on vehicle documents.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71446]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The information is as follows:

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Transport

  1990

  736

  461

  1991

  819

  392

  1992

  865

  375

  1993

  893

  525

  1994

  743

  502

  1995

  655

  440

  1996

  579

  410

  19971

  171

  96

  1 1 January 1997 to 30 April 1997

  76

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  19971

  586

  1998

  1,121

  1 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1997

  Regional Press Releases

  DoE/Dot 19961

  DoE/DoT/DETR 1997

  DETR 1998

  North East

  55

  71

  100

  North West

  50

  108

  127

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  196

  259

  360

  West Midlands

  183

  120

  162

  South West

  n/a

  175

  258

  East Midlands

  100

  95

  115

  Eastern

  n/a

  170

  379

  South East

  83

  109

  119

  1Figures prior to 1996 are not available. Figures for 1996 are aggregates of those issued on behalf of the former DoE and DoT. For 1997 DoE, DoT and from 1 May 1997 the DETR. Figures for 1998 relate to DETR.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  1990: 30

  1991: 28

  1992: 22

  1993: 26

  1994: 31

  1995: 23

  1996: 24

  1997: 26

  1998: 24

  Driving Standards Agency

  1990: 6

  1991: 24

  1992: 45

  1993: 29

  1994: 35

  1995: 10

  1996: 33

  1997: 71

  1998: 61

  Highways Agency (Established 1994)

  1994: 11

  1995: 34

  1996: 67

  1997: 33

  1998: 33.

  Regional Press Releases

  19961

  1997

  1998

  North East

  40

  46

  103

  North West

  200

  124

  180

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  286

  258

  346

  West Midlands

  191

  199

  230

  South West

  n/a

  75

  87

  East Midlands

  189

  87

  175

  Eastern

  n/a

  74

  167

  South East

  190

  225

  213

  1 Figures prior to 1996 are not available

  77

  Year

  Number

  Marine Safety Agency (Established 1994)

  1994

  14

  1995

  41

  1996

  33

  1997

  21

  19981

  2

  Coastguard Agency (Established 1994)

  1994

  9

  1995

  23

  1996

  2

  1997

  94

  19981

  31

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Established 1998)

  19982

  280

  1 1 January 1998 to 31 March 1998

  2 1 April 1998 to 31 December 1998

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  1990: 7

  1991: 8

  1992: 9

  1993: 8

  1994: 10

  1995: 9

  1996: 12

  1997: 14

  1998: 13

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1990: nil

  1991: 1

  1992–1995: nil

  1996: 2

  1997–1998: nil

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1990–1991 press releases issued by the then DoT on behalf of VI and included in DoT figures above

  1992: 23

  1993: 16

  1994: 9

  1995: 15

  1996: 40

  1997: 34

  1998: 32.

  In addition to the above agencies, the DETR has responsibility for 47 non departmental public bodies on whose behalf the Department issues a small number of press releases each year. To provide the information requested for each NDPB individually from the totals issued by DETR since its formation in May 1997, and prior to that from the totals issued by the former Department of the Environment and Department of Transport would be disproportionately costly.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and 78
  non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71461]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Rules governing the work of the 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 Libraries of the House.

  Press releases are principally issued on my Department's behalf via the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service. The cost of this service for DETR for the period in question was £111.8k. Figures for DETR staff and postage costs specifically in relation to the issue of press releases are not available.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Council (Cash Limits)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Council what changes she intends to make to the 1998–99 cash and running cost limits for the Privy Council. [72366]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XVIII, Vote 3 will be increased by £157,000 from £2,887,000 to £3,044,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £157,000 from £2,360,000 to £2,517,000.

  The increase in the cash and running cost limits reflects the transfer to the Department of responsibility for minor occupier charges, together with the cost of establishing an office and support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office.

  The increase in minor occupier charges will be offset by a transfer of £87,000 from Cabinet Office Class XVIII, Vote 1, and savings elsewhere within Class XVIII; and the remainder will be a charge to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Genetically Modified Plants
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council when the then Select Committee on European Legislation reported on proposals from the European Commission to regulate the growing of genetically modified plants for research and sale, when such proposals were considered in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House; and what resolutions were passed. [72180]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The European Commission adopted a proposal in February 1998 to amend Council Directive 90/220/EEC. This Directive establishes a system of controls which require prior consent from a Member State competent authority or any research and development release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Approval at Community level is required before any
  79
  product containing GMOs may be placed on the Community market. The proposed amendment, which is contained in EC document 6378/98, COM(98)85 final, is currently under negotiation. The Government submitted an explanatory memorandum on the proposal on 23 March 1998 which was considered by the then Select Committee on European Legislation on 29 April 1998. The Committee reported that the proposal raised issues of political importance but requested further information from the Government and did not clear it from scrutiny (26th report, 97–98, HC 155-xxv1). The Committee subsequently reconsidered the proposal on 9 December 1998 on the basis of further information provided by the Government in a letter of 27 November 1998 from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. The Committee maintained that the proposal raised issues of political importance and recommended that it should be debated in European Standing Committee A (3rd report, 98–99 HC 34-iii). That debate has yet to take place but will be held in good time before any decisions are taken on the proposed amendments by the Council of Ministers. An adjournment debate on the effect of Directive 90/220/EEC was held on 16 December 1998, Official Report, columns 927–33, by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).

TREASURY

  Smuggling (Tobacco and Alcohol)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of confiscated smuggled or bootlegged(a) tobacco and its products and (b) alcohol in each year since 1994. [70017]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that figures on the value of confiscated smuggled tobacco and alcohol products are not available.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals who were caught smuggling alcohol and tobacco(a) were given a final warning, (b) received a caution, (c) received a conviction and fine and (d) were imprisoned in each of the last three years. [70817]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]I regret that central records are not kept in this format.

  Fines (Income)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the agreed Treasury criteria for income from certain fines to be used to meet some of the costs of those engaged in the enforcement and prosecution of offenders. [70231]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (Command 3978) announced that Departments would keep more of their receipts, including from fines, where this would further the Government's economic objectives, improve efficiency and not prejudice spending plans and priorities. Further details on the criteria are set out in a technical Treasury paper (PES(98)7(Revise)) which was circulated to 80
  Departments on 31 July 1998. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [70771]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 569–70.

  Arms Embargoes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United Kingdom companies currently under investigation by Customs and Excise for alleged breaches of(a) United Kingdom, (b) European Union and (c) mandatory UN arms embargoes. [71049]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not the normal practice of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to comment publicly about the existence or nature of any current investigations.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many United Kingdom companies have been found guilty of breaching(a) United Kingdom and (b) mandatory UN arms embargoes in the periods (i) January 1996 to January 1997, (ii) January 1997 to January 1998 and (iii) January 1998 to January 1999. [71051]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No United Kingdom companies were found guilty of breaching United Kingdom or mandatory UN arms embargoes during the periods in question. Three individuals have been found guilty in connection with the activities of UK companies, two in 1996 in relation to a destination subject to a United Kingdom arms embargo and one in 1998 in relation to a destination subject to a European Union arms embargo.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the contribution which the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative will make towards the achievement of the OECD target of halving world poverty by 2015. [71308]

  Ms Hewitt
  Debt relief is one of the means by which the Chancellor hopes to meet the OECD target of halving world poverty by 2015. Data on the exact contribution which the HIPC initiative will make towards achieving the target are not currently available.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 568, 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

  81
  and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]There was no expenditure for the categories required which was not included in the earlier answer.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 568, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]There was no expenditure relating to work carried our for HM Treasury by the bodies listed for the categories required which was not included in the earlier answer.

  Travel Insurance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people affected by the extension of insurance premium tax to travel insurance announced in the 1998 Budget. [70690]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]None. Insurance Premium Tax has always applied to travel insurance.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce changes in the Vehicle Excise Duty system for cars; and if he will make a statement. [71079]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]A consultation paper setting out the options for reforming vehicle excise duty was published on 3 November 1998. The formal consultation ended on 31 January 1999 and all responses are now being considered. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many substantive responses he has received to the Vehicle Excise Duty consultation paper. [71080]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The total number of responses received to 5 February is over 2,200.

  Foreign Earnings Deduction
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) businesses and (b) individuals are affected by the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction announced in the 1998 Budget; and in each case, if he will estimate the average annual cost. [70654]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]There is no information available on the number of businesses that employ people who were affected by the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction.

  All UK taxpayers are affected by the abolition of the foreign earnings deduction. The closing of this loophole means that ordinary taxpayers no longer have to make
  82
  good the shortfall created by a minority of UK residents being able to escape tax on their income. The estimated number of employees who have lost the advantage they previously enjoyed as a result of the foreign earnings deduction is about 20,000. All those affected are simply put on an equal footing with other UK residents.

  Property Purchases
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many purchases of(a) private dwellings and (b) business premises in excess of £250,000 were made in 1998. [70691]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]It is provisionally estimated that there were about 40,000 residential transactions and about 20,000 commercial and land transactions in excess of £250,000 in 1998, out of a total of 1.5 million property transactions.

  Pensions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of(a) personal pension plans and (b) occupational pension schemes which will be affected by the abolition of ACT credits. [70684]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Most pension providers receive dividends from UK companies. To remove a distortion, which encouraged payment of dividends rather than retention of profits for investment, payable tax credits on those dividends were abolished in July 1997.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people who(a) were originally mis-sold personal pensions and (b) had reached a satisfactory settlement in respect of their pension entitlement (i) by 1 May 1997 and (ii) at the latest available date. [71557]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of people mis-sold personal pensions will not be known until the review is completed. The priority review identified a population of approximately 685,000. At 1 May 1997, the regulators' published figures showed about 15 per cent. of these case reviews had been completed. The latest figures for 30 November 1998 showed 91 per cent. of priority reviews completed.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of businesses which will be affected by the introduction of quarterly payments of corporation tax; and what will be the average cost per business. [70652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The introduction of quarterly payments of corporation tax will affect some 20,000 companies. This measure was part of a package of measures introduced in the 1998 Budget which included the abolition of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) and a 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax from April 1999. After a four year transition period, the effect for these companies of introducing quarterly payments, abolishing ACT and the 1 per cent. rate cut is likely on average to be a reduction in liability.

  Business Costs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the number of businesses which will be affected by the 1998 Budget announcement of withdrawal of cash basis for professional businesses and (b) the average cost per business. [70653]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Inland Revenue has no central record of which businesses are on the cash basis, and no estimate of the total number of such businesses. It is therefore not possible to estimate an average cost per business.

  Fiscal Measures
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many businesses were affected by the 1997 Budget announcement which prohibited the(a) transfer of unused past allowances and (b) acceleration of capital allowances; and if he will estimate the average cost to each affected business; [70685]

  (2) how many businesses were affected by the 1997 Budget announcement that dividends will be taxed as trading profits; and if he will estimate the average cost per business; [70686]

  (3) how many businesses were affected by the 1997 Budget announcement which blocked company purchase schemes; and if he will estimate the average cost to each affected business; [70699]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of businesses which will be affected by the change in rules on (a) capital gain buying and (b) controlled foreign companies which were announced in the 1998 Budget; and what will be the average cost per business. [70687]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]In respect of all but the 1998 changes obliging companies to include amounts chargeable under the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules in their self assessment tax returns the measures referred to are aimed at stemming the loss of tax through avoidance devices and possibly outright evasion, rather than being tax raising. The relevant tax yields in the respective Budget Reports reflect the direct effects of the measures within the existing level of activity. The measures protect the Exchequer against greater losses in the future. Accurate estimates of the number of businesses affected directly at the time action was taken, or who might in future have been involved if action had not been taken, are not available.

  In respect of the CFC change relating to self assessment, it is estimated that 1,500 groups will be affected by the new legislation and that the total compliance cost will be under £10 million in the first year. Recurrent costs will be considerably less than initial costs. The change is estimated to raise £50 million in a full year.

  Biofuel Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government policy on the proposed EU Energy Products Directive as it affects the biofuel industry. [71397]
  84
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's position on the Energy Products Directive is that we favour some aspects of the proposal, such as higher minimum rates of tax on road fuels. However, we could not accept, for social policy reasons, any obligation to impose new taxes on domestic fuel and power. Our attitude to new taxes on business use of energy will depend on the decisions we take in the light of Lord Marshall's report on 'Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy', which was published on 3 November 1998.

  Under the terms of the draft Directive, Member States may introduce optional exemptions from tax or reduced rates for certain types of energy product and to products put to particular uses. This applies to energy products used in pilot projects for the development of more environmentally friendly products, or in relation to fuels from renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and geothermal power and biofuels.

  Private Capital Inflows
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide data for each of the last 20 years on non-foreign direct involvement private capital inflows into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on their quantifiable effect on the balance of payments. [71812]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 22 February 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on non-FDI private capital inflows into the UK.
  Estimates for non-FDI private capital inflows into the United Kingdom can be derived from the 1998 edition of "United Kingdom Balance of Payments: The Pink Book". The data in the Pink Book are available on the ONS database, which can be accessed by the Library. Capital inflows form part of the Financial Account within the Balance of Payments.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate reports that two British companies have transported arms in breach of UN embargoes on arms exports to Sierra Leone and the Congo. [71566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The investigation and prosecution of any alleged breaches of UK legislation implementing UN arms embargoes is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Anyone in possession of information which might suggest offences have been committed should make the material available to them.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances Customs and Excise are permitted to make a private arrangement with an individual caught smuggling rather than pursuing the full legal process. [70816]
  85
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Under section 152(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 the Commissioners may "compound" any proceedings for an offence under the Customs and Excise Acts i.e. accept a monetary penalty in lieu of prosecution. The decision whether to prosecute or compound proceedings is taken on the merits of each case. Offers to compound are made only if there is sufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings. Where an offer to compound is refused it is the policy of the Commissioners to prosecute for the alleged offence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70037]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The remuneration paid to London barristers and solicitors by this Department is not collated or held centrally, and the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Phillip 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 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 barristers. 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 operate between lawyer and client.

  Employment Policy (Business Costs)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact on business costs(a) the minimum wage, (b) the Working Time Regulations and (c) the Fairness at Work White Paper proposals have had to date; and what estimate he has made of the annual impact when fully implemented. [69816]

  Mr. Byers
  Regulatory impact assessments have been published for each of these measures and are available in the Library of the House.

  Deep-mined Coal
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the change in deep mined coal output in(a) the last quarter and (b) the last year; and how many pits closed in each time period. [69813]

  Mr. Byers
  Deep mined output in quarter 4 1998 compared with quarter 4 1997 has decreased by 0.8 million tonnes. This compares to a decrease of 3.6 million tonnes in quarter 4 1994 compared to quarter 4 1993.

  Deep mined output in calendar year 1998 compared with calendar year 1997 has decreased by 5 million tonnes. This compares to a decrease of 18.5 million tonnes between calendar year 1993 and 1994.

  One major pit and four smaller pits closed in quarter 4 1998 and six small pits closed during the first three quarters of the year.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications his Department has received in each of the last three years for(a) Iran and (b) other countries. [70063]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1998, 37,478 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences were received.

  Number of applications for Standard Individual Export Licences received in each calendar year covering exports (a) to Iran or (b) to any other destination (enduser).

  Year

  Iran

  All other destinations

  1996

  146

  13,382

  1997

  118

  12,071

  1998

  164

  12,025

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

  Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) routinely cover exports to a number of countries (unlike Standard Individual Export Licences, each of which normally covers exports to a single country). Any country initially specified on an OIEL application but not included as a permitted destination on the licence issued is not recorded on the Export Control Organisation's computer databases. Accordingly, as regards OIELs, the information requested could be compiled only by manual examination of the paper records of all 1,515 applications made in the period, which would entail disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average length of time taken by his Department to issue export licences; if he will estimate
  87
  the impact on the value of export orders of the length of time taken; and what representations he has received from exporters. [70759]

  Dr. Howells
  From time to time, exporters and representative bodies express concern about the time taken to process specific applications or generally. All such cases are carefully investigated and replied to.

  The average length of time taken to process individual export licence applications is not recorded. However, performance is monitored against published targets, which were set out to the hon. Member in my answer of 11 February 1999, Official Report, column 404. Data on performance will be included in the forthcoming Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, and in future reports.

  The sensitive issues raised by many applications mean that it is not possible to guarantee that the decision on a particular application can be taken by a specific date. However, the Export Control Organisation does aim wherever possible to give exporters a reasonable indication of the additional time that the processing of their applications is likely to take.

  As recognised by the Trade and Industry Committee in its recent report on strategic export controls, the overall performance of the Government's export licensing system depends on contributions from all of the Departments involved. The Government have already taken steps to improve the information provided to exporters on the status of pending licence applications. Within DTI, the Export Control Organisation has in place both formal and informal procedures to encourage the timely provision of advice on urgent or exceptionally delayed applications; in addition, as appropriate, exporters may be put in direct contact with relevant advisers in other Departments.

  Finally, the introduction of the ELATE computer system on 1 March should, among other advantages, improve the exchange of licensing information between Departments and is intended to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing process.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to accept applications for export licences by means of telephone and e-mail. [70758]

  Dr. Howells
  As the processing of applications for export licences cannot be completed without relevant supporting documentation, and applications need formally to be signed by specifically designated persons it would be impractical for them to be made by telephone.

  The introduction of a new export licence application form and the ELATE computer system on 1 March 1999 is a first step in the process towards the use of electronic data in export licence processing. For the first time, exporters will be able to apply for a standard individual export licence using electronic information transferred on a floppy disk. The information on the disk will be entered into the ELATE system at the DTI and, where applications have to be circulated to the FCO or MoD for advice, the electronic information will be transferred to them via a modem link or on disk. Additional supporting documentation, such as end-user documentation and technical specifications will still be required in paper form.
  88
  Once the effectiveness of ELATE has been proven, the aim will be to extend the transfer of information by disk or modem link to all advisory departments involved in export licence consideration. The Government will work towards full electronic applications where the end-user documentation and technical specifications can be transferred together with the application by electronic mail subject to satisfactory assessment of security and other relevant considerations.

  Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the oral answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 1007, if he will list each company with which the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has been associated, indicating the dates upon which their annual returns were filed in each year of the company's existence. [70129]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear on 4 February 1999,Official Report, columns 1091–92, my oral answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham referred to Attractions Limited. The annual return for Attractions Limited in 1997 was filed on 1 November in compliance with the deadlines set by Companies House. It was returned by Companies House on 5 November for completion of the SIC code and it was registered on 13 November 1997. The annual return for Attractions Limited in 1998 was sent to Companies House on 21 October 1998. It was lost in transit. Companies House sent a reminder on 10 December, setting a deadline of 10 January 1999. A new return for Attractions Limited was received by Companies House on 8 January 1999.

  Travel Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about takeovers and regional integration in the travel industry; and if he will make a statement. [70921]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received a limited number of representations about takeovers in the travel industry.

  The Director General of Fair Trading advises on mergers which qualify for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Where a merger raises concerns in respect of a particular market—whether throughout the whole of the United Kingdom or in a particular region—it can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [70781]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official

  89
  Report, columns 569–70. No Department of Trade and Industry civil servants have had their pensions removed or reduced for disciplinary reasons in the last five years.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [70413]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]The information requested by the hon. Member is not available in the form requested.

  Cigarette Lighters
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the assistance which the introduction of a requirement for cigarette lighters to bear the identity of the manufacturer or importer would provide to the work of trading standards officers; and if he will make a statement; [70804]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) trading standards officers and (b) the BSI on introducing a requirement for the identity of the manufacturer or importer to be marked on each cigarette lighter; and if he will make a statement. [70790]

  Dr. Howells
  Apart from the recent correspondence from my hon. Friend and concerns raised by European lighter manufacturers about imported lighters, I have not received any recent representations from trading standards officers or the British Standards Institution about introducing a requirement for the identity of the manufacturer or importer to be marked on cigarette lighters. However, a requirement to provide for such traceability will be included in the revised European and international standard for lighters (BS EN ISO 9994). I believe that this requirement will help enforcement, although I have not made a formal assessment of this.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the number of people injured by fireworks in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [71065]

  Dr. Howells
  DTI is still collating the firework injury data and I do not believe that we should speculate when we are so close to having the final figures. I expect the detailed statistics to be available shortly and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as they have been verified.

  Foreign Inward Investment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide data on foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom for each of the last 20 years, broken down into,(a) the stocks and flows of inward investment for each year, (b) the percentage
  90
  of foreign direct investment in mergers and acquisitions for each year, (c) the percentage of the labour force employed in foreign direct investment for each year, (d) the contribution of foreign direct investment to United Kingdom tax revenues for each year, (e) the total subsidies given to foreign investors for each year and (f) the total royalties paid to abroad by the United Kingdom on foreign direct investment for each year. [71561]

  Mr. Wills
  Available information is given in the tables. No official data are collected for tax revenues from foreign enterprises or total royalties paid to abroad by the UK on FDI.

  (a) Table 1 shows the stocks and flows of foreign direct investment into the UK each year from 1978 until 1997, the latest year available. FDI covers not only the acquisition of fixed assets, stock building and stock appreciation but all other financial transactions, such as additions to, or payments of, working capital, other loans and credit, and acquisitions of securities. The figures cover transactions where the investor's purpose is to have an effective voice in the company, taken to be equivalent to a holding of 20 per cent. or more (10 per cent. in the 1997 figures). Stock figures are recorded at the end of the stated period. They are not cumulative totals of investment flows, but also take account of goodwill write-offs, revaluation of assets and exchange rate fluctuations.

  Table 1: Foreign direct investment in the UK

  £ million

  Year

  Stocks

  Flows

  1978

  11,098

  1,261

  1979

  —

  1,740

  1980

  —

  2,541

  1981

  16,962

  980

  1982

  —

  1,137

  1983

  —

  2,063

  1984

  38,484

  —245

  1985

  —

  4,417

  1986

  —

  5,645

  1987

  58,430

  8,986

  1988

  71,652

  11,562

  1989

  93,554

  17,405

  1990

  105,760

  17,155

  1991

  111,373

  8,418

  1992

  114,409

  8,816

  1993

  121,005

  9,871

  1994

  121,336

  6,046

  1995

  128,885

  12,654

  1996

  134,654

  15,662

  1997

  156,969

  21,751

  Note:

  Figures for stocks of FDI were collected only triennially before 1987.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  (b) Table 2 shows the percentage of FDI flows into the UK represented by mergers and acquisitions of companies. The value of acquisitions is the sum of the value of transactions where the foreign business takes their percentage share of the relevant UK target to over 50 per cent. Figures are available only from 1986.
  91

  Table 2: Percentage of FDI represented by acquisitions and mergers

  Year

  Percentage

  1986

  21

  1987

  26

  1988

  23

  1989

  62

  1990

  58

  1991

  51

  1992

  38

  1993

  42

  1994

  74

  1995

  88

  1996

  41

  1997

  53

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  (c) Figures for the percentage of the labour force employed in foreign enterprises are available only for the manufacturing sector. This sector represents between 20 and 25 per cent. of total employees over the years shown. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years. In Table 3 foreign enterprises are defined as those controlled by companies incorporated overseas; this is different from the definition used in Table 1, where figures include all transactions where the investor's purpose is to have an effective voice in the company, taken to be equivalent to a holding of 20 per cent. or more.

  Table 3: Percentage of employees in the manufacturing industry employed by foreign enterprises

  Year

  Percentage

  1983

  14.5

  1984

  14.8

  1985

  14.0

  1986

  13.0

  1987

  13.4

  1988

  13.1

  1989

  14.9

  1990

  16.1

  1991

  17.2

  1992

  18.1

  1993

  17.9

  1994

  18.6

  1995

  17.2

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  (e) Table 4 shows offers of grant accepted by foreign owned businesses in GB under Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), the DTI's main investment grant scheme, in each of the last ten years. Figures for earlier years are not available:

  Table 4

  £ million

  Year

  Grant

  1989

  141

  1990

  166

  1991

  79

  1992

  85

  1993

  157

  1994

  155

  1995

  133

  1996

  170

  1997

  364

  1998

  167

  Source:

  DTI

  Dormant Companies
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have been made to the CHN21, Dormant Company Accounts booklet to ensure that directors of dormant companies are made aware of the DCA forms. [71136]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]A new version of CHN 21 is currently being printed. It makes reference to the availability of a form DCA for dormant companies that have not traded since incorporation. This is not a statutorily prescribed form. It is offered as a helpful aid for dormant companies and its use is entirely optional.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what publicity has been arranged for the Dormant Company Accounts form relating to the submission of annual accounts by dormant companies. [71135]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The availability of the Dormant Company Accounts form was communicated via the Companies House Magazine for customers, "The Register". This is widely read by professional presenters, who submit accounts to the Agency on behalf of companies. It has also been publicised via Companies House User Groups and at their Road Shows. Companies House cannot readily target individual dormant company directors. The Companies House publicity budget does not allow it to do more than publicise the most important issues in national media and mail drops.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [70458]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The Department has 46 per cent. of its staff located outside London. This includes the Patent Office and Companies House, which relocated from London to Wales, a strong presence in the Government Offices for the Regions and the regional networks of the Insolvency Service, Employment Tribunals Service and Radiocommunications Agency. There has been no major decentralisation in recent years. The scope for further relocation is limited by operational requirements.

  GATT
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the benefits to the United Kingdom economy in(a) output and (b) jobs of the Uruguay round of trade and investment talks. [71757]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1994, the GATT secretariat estimated that, by the year 2005, the Uruguay Round Agreement could boost world incomes by up to 1.4 per cent. per annum and European Union incomes by up to 1.7 per cent. per annum.
  93
  No reliable estimates have been made of the output or employment benefits of the Agreement to the UK alone. However, as the second largest trader with non-EU economies among EU Member States, the UK is likely to be a major beneficiary of these projected income gains.

  Precious Metals Directive
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the draft Precious Metals Directive to be discussed next by EU ministers. [71370]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The draft directive is under consideration at Council Working Group level and is unlikely to be discussed by Ministers unless a greater degree of consensus can be reached. I have had no indication as to whether Germany intends to convene meetings of the Council Working Group to consider the proposal during her Presidency.

  Venture Capital
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning competition between financial intermediaries to which small businesses can apply for venture capital; and if he will make a statement. [71527]

  Mr. Wills
  I am not aware of any representations concerning competition between financial intermediaries to which small businesses can apply for venture capital.

  I am aware that growing businesses have faced difficulties in raising venture capital in small amounts. We therefore announced, in the Competitiveness White Paper (Cmd 4176), the creation of the Enterprise Fund. One of the functions of this Fund will be to stimulate the availability of venture capital for smaller businesses.

  We are also working with the key players in the informal investment or "business angel" markets to stimulate the availability of venture capital from individual investors.

  Hallmarks
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many copies of "New Hallmarks", a consumer guide, have been printed; and by what means it is being distributed. [71364]

  Dr. Howells
  One million copies have been printed. The Assay offices are sending copies to their entire client base and DTI is also asking the principal retail trade associations to make their members aware of the leaflet. Individual retailers will then be able to order copies free of charge to be displayed at the point of sale. Further copies are being made available to Citizens Advice Bureaux, Consumer Advice Centres and public libraries.

  Businesses (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in the Barnsley MBC area are registered at Companies House; and how many of these businesses have fewer than 20 employees. [71141]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 242 companies registered at Companies House in Barnsley (S71) area. Companies House has no information on how many of these have fewer than 20 employees.
  94
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in the Doncaster MBC area are registered at Companies House; and how many of these businesses have fewer than 20 employees. [71140]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 598 companies registered at Companies House in the Doncaster DN1 area. Companies House has no information on how many of these have fewer than 20 employees.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), met as Secretary of State(a) the Chairman and (b) the Chief Executive of British Aerospace plc during 1998; and what subjects were discussed on each occasion. [70651]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 3 December 1998,Official Report, column 291. These described all his meetings as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with British Aerospace in 1998 up to that date.

  Subsequently, my right hon. Friend also met the Chairman and Chief Executive of British Aerospace on 15 December at a reception to mark the twenty-first anniversary of the creation of that company. DTI officials were also present.

  Manufacturing Best Practice
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he plans to introduce to encourage UK manufacturing companies to adopt the best practice techniques of their international competitors. [71644]

  Mr. Battle
  There is a wide variety of existing measures available to manufacturing companies to learn from and adopt the best practice of their international competitors. New measures include the CBI-led "Fit for the Future" Campaign, launched by the Secretary of State in December 1998 and featured in the recently published Competitiveness White Paper. The Campaign will provide an umbrella to enable business to get help and advice when and where is it needed. The Campaign is business led and is supported by the Department to ensure coverage of all sectors and sizes of industry.

  The White Paper announced other measures designed to increase competitiveness through the process of "Business learning from Business". Two examples are the adaptation of the successful automotive sector project where "world-class" engineers work within the supply base to make significant improvements in manufacturing practice. The Department will be investing £15 million to support projects in up to 10 new sectors. A further example is the Department's work to gather international data based to the UK Benchmarking Index. This development will enable SMEs to compare their own business performance with peer groups in the UK and world-wide.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71349]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code makes clear that Ministers should inform hon. Members in advance of planned visits to their constituencies. I and my Ministers undertake visits to all parts of the country but records of official visits are not held on a constituency basis.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [71470]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Rules governing the work of the 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 April 1997 my department has spent £399,000 on distributing press releases through the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service.

  Airline Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the liberalisation of the airline industry and on the potential exploitation of monopoly positions at certain British airports. [71656]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The liberalisation of the airline industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. My Department has received a number of representations in relation to competition cases involving airlines.

  City Flyer Express
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received over the take-over of City Flyer Express by British Airways; and if he will make a statement. [71655]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a number of representations on the proposed acquisition by British Airways plc of City Flyer Express Ltd. He announced on 20 January that, in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, he had referred the merger to the Monopolies 96
  and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. The MMC are to make their report by 28 April 1999.

  BNFL
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) funded on the technical feasibility of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. conditioning German spent nuclear fuel and German nuclear waste currently held at Sellafield for final disposal in Germany; and what studies have been undertaken into the commercial opportunities for the company in Germany for undertaking such conditioning; [71919]

  (2) what discussion he has had with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. on the conditioning of German spent fuel and German waste currently held at Sellafield for final disposal in Germany; and if he will make a statement. [71916]

  Mr. Battle
  None. Subject to meeting relevant safety, security and international safeguard requirements, it is for the owners of spent nuclear fuel to choose whether to reprocess it or whether to seek alternative management options. The contracts now in place between BNFL and German electricity utilities are for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Since 1976 all new contracts for reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for return of wastes. The government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes arising from reprocessing be returned to the country of origin. Arrangements for the return of wastes are a commercial matter between BNFL and its overseas customers, subject to meeting relevant regulatory requirements.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the German Government on final disposal in Germany of German spent fuel and German nuclear waste that is currently held at Sellafield by BNFL. [71917]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 453–54.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the KPMG report on British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. [72591]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 455.

  Small Businesses (New Jobs)
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new jobs he expects will be created by small businesses over the next 12 months. [72298]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not produce forecasts of the number of jobs created by small businesses. Previous studies have shown that small businesses (those with under 50 employees) are responsible for six out of every ten new jobs created in the UK.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions for written answer have been tabled to his Department in each session since May 1997; and how many have not been answered on grounds of disproportionate cost. [71933]

  Mr. Byers
  In the 1997–98 session, my Department gave written answers to 4,146 questions, of which 18 could not be answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

  So far in this session, 692 questions have been given written answers, with 3 not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Plutonium Shipments (Japan)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 451, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 18 January 1999, Official Report, columns 364–65, if he will set out what proportion of the costs for physical protection of transporting plutonium fuels will be borne by Japan and the United Kingdom respectively; and if he will indicate what proportion of the United Kingdom's costs will be borne by the public purse. [72608]

  Mr. Battle
  All the capital costs incurred by BNFL in undertaking contracts for transporting MOX fuel from Europe to Japan, including the costs of ensuring the physical protection of the shipment, would be reflected in the value of the contracts between BNFL and its customers.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Time Directive on the film industry. [71744]

  Company Name

  Project Nature

  Date of announcement

  Acer Peripherals

  Computer monitors

  18 December 1997

  Almedica

  Clinical contract packaging

  1 February 1995

  Halla Euro Enterprise

  Excavators and fork lifts

  1 February 1996

  LG Electronics

  Monitor assembly

  1 July 1996

  LG Semiconductors

  Semiconductor fabrication

  1 July 1996

  Robertson Associates

  Can ends for beverage industry

  1 December 1992

  Schulman Plastics

  Plastics

  1 April 1992

  Showa Corporation

  Suspension and steering systems

  23 August 1996

  Unites States Can Co

  Aerosol cans

  20 September 1996

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the application of the national minimum wage to au pairs. [71970]
  98
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There was no specific assessment of the impact of the Working Time Directive on the film industry. An assessment for the whole of British industry was made, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Payment Cards
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the post offices that have been automated to take payment cards under the BA PoCL scheme. [72023]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office have provided a list of the 204 post offices in the North-East and South-West of England that have been automated and are paying Child Benefit by Payment Card as part of a limited trial. A copy of the list has been placed in the library of the House.

  London First
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) London First and (b) London First Centre since 1992; and for what purposes. [72166]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been three members of DTI staff out on secondment to London First Centre at different times since 1992: the first, for six months, on Inward Investment work during the initial months of the London Investment Agency; the second, for two years, as a Project Manager, co-ordinating the Inward Investment Programme by promoting London as a location of excellence to overseas investors; and the third, for two years, as Business Development Manager, particularly identifying Inward Investment from North America.

  Inward Investment (Wales)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the inward investments to Wales since 1992 to which the Invest in Britain Bureau contributed. [72295]

  Mr. Wills
  Between the years 1992 and 1998 my Departments Invest in Britain Bureau were significantly involved in 18 projects into Wales. The following list includes only those projects where the company has not requested commercial confidentiality and is based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK—it takes no account of subsequent developments.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The draft National Minimum Wage Regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 16 February, provide an exemption from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 for work carried
  99
  out, where the worker is living as a member of the employer's family. Overseas nationals in the UK under the Au Pair scheme, who undertake light household work and various childcare duties, and are treated as members of the host families, clearly fall within this category.

  Where au pairs, or any other worker, live in their employer's household and do not fully enjoy such benefits, the national minimum wage will still apply.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to issue guidance to those employing au pairs on the implications of the national minimum wage. [71971]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Detailed guidance on the application of the national minimum wage will be published shortly along with leaflets for employers and workers. It will be widely publicised and available from the helpline number—0845 8450 360.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government following the joint statement by the European Commission and Japan calling for investment to be included in the Millennium Round of WTO negotiations. [72043]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is also the long-established position of the UK Government that investment should be included in any future Round of negotiations in the WTO.

  European Commission
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the membership of the Article 113 Committee of Directorate-General I of the European Commission. [72042]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Article 113 Committee is an organ of the Council, not the Commission. It meets monthly at Full Member level, weekly at Deputy level, and on an ad-hoc basis at expert level. Each EU Member State is represented on the Committee as is the European Commission. Secretariat services are provided by the Council Secretariat.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement clarifying the(a) status and (b) decision-making process of Article 113 Committee of Directorate-General I of the European Commission. [72054]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Article 113 Committee is an organ of the Council of the EU. The Commission is required to conduct the Common Commercial Policy, in particular in negotiations with third countries and international organisations, in consultation with the Committee. It does not have a formal decision-making role.

  Postal Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 662, concerning postal charges, what representations he has received concerning the financial effects of the charges on the publishers of periodicals. [72596]
  100
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from a number of individual companies and from the Periodical Publishers Association on the effects of the proposed changes to postal tariffs on the publishers of periodicals, which we have carefully noted. Changes to postal tariffs are primarily a matter for the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if an internationally agreed standard for year 2000 compliance for computer systems has been agreed and published; and if he will make a statement. [72157]

  Mr. Wills
  I understand that a draft international standard ISO/IEC/16509 has been circulated by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for balloting within their member bodies. National standards bodies have been asked to reply by 12 March 1999. The British Standards Institution (BSI) is presently formulating the United Kingdom response to the document.

  Tobacco
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the development of global rules for tobacco marketing and on the resources he plans to commit to developing such rules. [70760]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on 15 December 1998, Official Report, column 456.

  European Directives
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the simpler legislation for the Internal Market Initiative applies to single market legislation which does not take the form of European Community directives; and what measures exist to simplify legislation currently in force outside of the single market field. [72531]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Apart from EC Directives, the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative also covers EC Regulations—the other type of generally-applicable legally-binding EC instrument—in the Single Market field.

  A Community simplification initiative that goes wider than the Single Market field is the work by the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers on codification of existing EC legislation. By providing official consolidated texts of legislative acts and their amendments it makes EC legislation more accessible and provides greater legal certainty. It covers all areas of EC legislation and has for example already been applied to legislation in the fields of agriculture, fisheries and social policy in addition to Single Market legislation.
  101

  St. Kilda
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has responded to the request from the UN for an explanation of the licensing of oil developments around St. Kilda; and if he will make a statement. [70868]
  102
  Mr. Macdonald
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has asked that we respond to the request by 15 April and we shall comply with that timetable.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown for (i) persistent young offenders and (ii) all young offenders, for each of the past three years, of the time taken from(a) arrest to charge, (b) charge to first appearance, (c) first appearance to start of trial, (d) start of trial to verdict and (e) verdict to sentence. [70620]

  Mr. Boateng
  I shall write to the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders appeared before youth courts and were convicted for the first time in the most recent year for which figures are available. [71086]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recent estimate of the number of first time young offenders found guilty in magistrates' courts (both youth and adult magistrates' courts) sets the figure at around 37,000 in 1996. This figure rises to approximately 38,900 if cases heard in the Crown Court are included.

  Criminal Record Certificates
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Active Community Unit to investigate the effect of the cost of criminal record certificates on the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement. [71864]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Criminal Records Bureau is being established to enable checks to be carried out to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children or vulnerable adults. Costs will be kept to a minimum and the highest form of certificate should cost around £10 for those volunteers having substantial, largely unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults.

  Not all volunteers will require a certificate, and a certificate will not obviate the need for voluntary organisations to carry out their own checks and references as part of normal recruitment procedures. However,

  New instructions

  Appeals disposed of

  1997–98

  Asylum

  Immigration

  Asylum

  Immigration

  Unit cost (£)

  Refugee Legal Centre

  6,123

  —

  4,454

  —

  3796.38

  Immigration Advisory Service

  3,020

  4,667

  1,279

  3,536

  2640.89

  Immigration Appellate Authority

  —

  —

  118,600

  111,200

  —

  1Both rounded to the nearest 00.

  2Overall unit cost for asylum and immigration cases. Immigration cases
  may be more easily dealt with, which may affect the overall figure.

  3Refugee Legal Centre normally deal with more complex asylum claims.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons claimed asylum(a) at the port of entry and (b) at his Department in each of the years 1993 to 1998, broken down by (i) successful application, (ii) unsuccessful application and (iii) application as yet undecided. [70731]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available at present but I hope to receive it shortly. I will then write to my hon. Friend.
  104
  the over-riding consideration at all times must be the protection of the vulnerable, and the service to be provided by the Criminal Records Bureau will help to achieve this. We do not believe that volunteering will diminish with the introduction of these checks.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of people he plans to exempt from charges for applications for(a) criminal conviction certificates and (b) criminal record certificates; and if he will make a statement. [71863]

  Mr. Boateng
  All applicants will have to pay for certificates from the Criminal Records Bureau. We considered very carefully whether there was any way in which free checks could be provided for any groups, especially volunteers. We have concluded that it will not be practicable to provide any free checks from the Criminal Records Bureau. We realise that this is unwelcome news but providing free checks would prove an unsustainable burden on the public purse and may increase demand for certificates from the Bureau to an uncontrollable extent. In addition, we do not consider it would be fair to allow one or two groups to have free certificates when there are other equally deserving groups.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of (1) new instructions and (2) disposals in(a) asylum and (b) immigration appeals undertaken by (i) the Immigration Advisory Service and (ii) the Refugee Legal Centre for 1997–98 and the number of appeals in both categories disposed of by the Immigration Appellate Authority in the same period together with the unit cost in both categories. [70755]

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

  It should be noted that the figures for the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service are based on outcomes (those cases in which the appeal may or may not have finally been disposed). The cases dealt with by the Refugee Legal Centre based on outputs is 8,154. The Immigration Advisory Service do not have any comparable statistical information on outputs.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time(a) European Union nationals and (b) non-European Union nationals who have not applied for asylum have spent on temporary admission in each year from 1993 to the latest date for which figures are available. [70747]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is available only for non-European Union nationals granted temporary admission at the 12 largest ports in 1998 whose case has
  105
  been resolved. Such persons, excluding those who applied for asylum, spent an average of 11 days on temporary admission.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time between lodging an out-of-country appeal against refusal of entry and removal from the UK and the date of hearing of the appeal in(a) asylum and (b) non-asylum cases, for those (i) removed on the latest convenient date and (ii) who had appeal hearings on the latest convenient date. [70746]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average length of time between the lodging of an out-of-country non-asylum appeal and the date of the appeal hearing date is 366 days. This information relates to data extracted on 15 February 1999, and covers the 12 largest ports (Heathrow (4 terminals), Gatwick (2 terminals), Manchester (2 terminals), Dover East, Harwich, Stansted and Waterloo.)

  There are very few out-of-country asylum appeals recorded and, therefore, information on average times for these cases may not be representative.

  Police Contingency Reserves
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the level of police contingency reserves in each police force on the last date for which figures are available; what is the level of reserves which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommends police forces should hold; and if he will make a statement. [71925]

  Mr. Boateng
  The level of unallocated balances held by each police authority at 31 March 1998 is shown in the table. In addition, police authorities hold earmarked reserves in respect of provisions, including pensions, insurances, and capital projects.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) has recently re-issued to police authorities advice in determining the appropriate level of reserves and balances. CIPFA recommends that the level of balances for a Police Authority should be around 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., depending on local circumstances.

  Police general balances at 31 August 1998

  £000

  Force

  Amount

  Avon & Somerset

  2,539

  Bedfordshire

  1,549

  Cambridgeshire

  1,755

  Cheshire

  6,162

  City of London

  —

  Cleveland

  1,563

  Cumbria

  198

  Derbyshire

  2,423

  Devon & Cornwall

  6,064

  Dorset

  1,227

  Durham

  1,524

  Dyfed-Powys

  527

  Essex

  2,148

  Gloucestershire

  3,320

  Greater Manchester

  8,552

  Gwent

  2,123

  Hampshire

  7,835

  106

  Police general balances at 31 August 1998

  £000

  Force

  Amount

  Hertfordshire

  3,514

  Humberside

  319

  Kent

  5,538

  Lancashire

  7,421

  Leicestershire

  3,054

  Lincolnshire

  522

  Merseyside

  7,452

  Metropolitan Police

  26,495

  Norfolk

  2,735

  Northamptonshire

  5,106

  Northumbria

  —

  North Wales

  2,036

  North Yorkshire

  2,873

  Nottinghamshire

  3,335

  South Wales

  3,600

  South Yorkshire

  6,123

  Staffordshire

  6,996

  Suffolk

  2,002

  Surrey

  3,975

  Sussex

  8,919

  Thames Valley

  5,130

  Warwickshire

  1,750

  West Mercia

  2,880

  West Midlands

  5,010

  West Yorkshire

  3,881

  Wiltshire

  10,907

  Total

  181,082

  Prisoners
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of hours per day that prisoners were locked in their cells in each of the last three years, in each(a) Prison Service establishment, (b) privately managed prison and (c) in total; and if he will make a statement. [71924]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average number of hours per weekday that prisoners were locked in their cells for each of the last three calendar years is given in the table:

  Prison name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Public prisons

  Acklington

  11.95

  11.95

  11.95

  Albany

  13.0

  13.0

  13.2

  Aldington

  12.2

  12.8

  12.5

  Ashwell

  8.5

  8.5

  8.5

  Askham Grange

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Aylesbury

  14.8

  15.5

  14.6

  Bedford

  13.5

  13.2

  13.3

  Belmarsh

  14.1

  15.8

  15.0

  Birmingham

  17.2

  18.2

  18.5

  Blantyre House

  8.8

  8.8

  8.8

  Blundeston

  12.3

  13.9

  13.9

  Brinsford

  15.5

  12.8

  13.8

  Bristol

  12.4

  14.2

  13.8

  Brixton

  15.4

  10.9

  14.0

  Brockhill

  11.7

  12.8

  13.3

  Bullingdon

  12.9

  14.4

  13.9

  Bullwood Hall

  12.0

  12.0

  12.5

  Camp Hill

  11.9

  12.0

  12.0

  Canterbury

  12.7

  13.8

  13.3

  Cardiff

  12.1

  12.7

  12.1

  107

  Prison name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Castington

  14.6

  14.2

  14.1

  Channings Wood

  12.8

  12.8

  12.8

  Chelmsford

  16.0

  13.9

  14.8

  Coldingley

  10.5

  10.9

  10.7

  Cookham Wood

  13.5

  15.1

  13.9

  Dartmoor

  14.0

  14.1

  15.2

  Deerbolt

  13.3

  13.5

  13.6

  Dorchester

  13.6

  13.6

  15.6

  Dover

  14.8

  14.8

  14.8

  Downview

  12.5

  12.5

  12.7

  Drake Hall

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Durham

  13.7

  15.2

  15.8

  East Sutton Park

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Elmley

  13.5

  13.8

  14.0

  Erlestoke

  11.2

  12.9

  13.0

  Everthorpe

  12.9

  15.1

  14.9

  Exeter

  14.0

  14.2

  14.2

  Featherstone

  13.7

  13.7

  13.7

  Feltham

  16.1

  16.0

  16.0

  Ford

  10.8

  10.8

  10.6

  Frankland

  14.0

  14.7

  14.6

  Full Sutton

  13.5

  14.2

  14.5

  Garth

  14.9

  14.7

  14.0

  Gartree

  12.0

  13.0

  13.2

  Glen Parva

  14.9

  14.8

  14.8

  Gloucester

  14.5

  14.5

  14.5

  Grendon

  5.7

  9.7

  10.0

  Guys Marsh

  10.8

  10.8

  10.8

  Haslar

  11.8

  12.0

  12.0

  Hatfield

  10.8

  10.8

  10.8

  Haverigg

  11.5

  11.2

  11.2

  Hewell Grange

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Highdown

  12.7

  12.8

  13.8

  Highpoint

  11.0

  12.7

  14.6

  Hindley

  15.6

  16.7

  15.3

  Hollesley Bay

  15.0

  7.7

  8.9

  Holloway

  14.4

  14.1

  13.5

  Holme House

  15.1

  13.7

  14.5

  Hull

  13.4

  13.9

  13.5

  Huntercombe

  12.0

  13.0

  13.0

  Kingston

  11.5

  11.3

  10.8

  Kirkham

  10.5

  10.7

  10.5

  Kirklevington

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  Lancaster

  12.3

  12.7

  13.3

  Lancaster Farms

  12.0

  13.0

  14.1

  Latchmere House

  0.0

  0.0

  2.1

  Leeds

  17.1

  16.7

  15.8

  Leicester

  12.6

  13.1

  12.5

  Lewes

  14.8

  15.1

  14.6

  Leyhill

  0.0

  0.0

  2.7

  Lincoln

  12.8

  12.8

  13.7

  Lindholme

  8.7

  8.7

  8.9

  Littlehey

  13.5

  13.5

  13.5

  Liverpool

  16.8

  16.7

  17.1

  Long Lartin

  13.3

  13.6

  14.5

  Low Newton

  14.8

  14.8

  14.5

  Maidstone

  12.6

  12.6

  13.4

  Manchester

  11.6

  12.9

  13.7

  Moorland

  12.1

  12.0

  11.5

  Morton Hall

  0.0

  9.0

  9.0

  Mount

  11.9

  12.2

  13.9

  New Hall

  12.0

  12.0

  12.4

  North Sea Camp

  7.5

  7.5

  7.6

  Notherallerton

  13.8

  13.8

  13.8

  Norwich

  12.9

  14.2

  14.7

  Nottingham

  12.0

  12.2

  14.3

  Onley

  12.0

  12.4

  12.5

  Parkhurst

  13.0

  13.1

  13.7

  Pentonville

  13.9

  15.2

  15.0

  Portland

  13.3

  13.4

  13.3

  Preston

  15.2

  14.8

  15.8

  108

  Prison name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Ranby

  10.8

  10.9

  10.8

  Reading

  13.5

  15.2

  14.9

  Risley

  13.1

  13.2

  14.2

  Rochester

  12.3

  11.7

  12.3

  Send

  11.3

  11.3

  11.3

  Shepton Mallet

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  Shrewsbury

  14.1

  10.0

  10.6

  Stafford

  14.5

  14.5

  14.6

  Standford Hill

  9.5

  9.3

  3.1

  Stocken

  11.5

  11.5

  11.5

  Stoke Heath

  11.9

  12.3

  12.8

  Styal

  10.7

  10.8

  10.8

  Sudbury

  6.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Swaleside

  14.0

  14.2

  14.3

  Swansea

  13.3

  14.7

  16.7

  Swinfen Hall

  13.9

  13.9

  15.4

  Thorn Cross

  11.5

  11.5

  11.5

  Usk

  8.2

  7.8

  7.6

  Verne

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  Wakefield

  12.4

  13.1

  14.3

  Wandsworth

  14.1

  14.5

  15.8

  Wayland

  12.0

  12.3

  13.5

  Wealstun

  11.4

  11.4

  11.7

  Wellingborough

  12.0

  12.0

  12.7

  Werrington

  10.5

  10.5

  10.5

  Wetherby

  12.0

  12.6

  13.3

  Whatton

  11.3

  11.3

  11.3

  Whitemoor

  13.8

  13.9

  13.9

  Winchester

  15.5

  13.5

  15.6

  Woodhill

  12.1

  12.5

  13.1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  13.7

  15.8

  15.3

  Wymott

  10.8

  11.7

  11.8

  Privately managed prisons

  Blakenhurst

  10.7

  13.3

  13.3

  Buckley Hall

  10.7

  11.5

  10.9

  Doncaster

  11.9

  12.5

  12.9

  Wolds

  10.5

  10.6

  12.0

  Service Total

  11.8

  12.0

  12.2

  Altcourse1

  —

  —

  11

  Lowdham Grange1

  —

  —

  10.5

  Parc1

  —

  —

  10

  1These establishments began operating during the course of the year. The data are therefore only partial and so have not been included in the service totals.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of probation supervision those offenders released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme will be subject to; and if he will make a statement. [71927]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Offenders sentenced to 12 months and over are subject on release to supervision by a probation officer in accordance with National Standards, which apply whether or not an offender qualifies for the home detention curfew scheme. These Standards lay down, amongst other things, minimum levels of contact. A copy of the Standards is in the Library. They are now being reviewed in consultation with interested bodies, but revisions will not come into effect before April 2000.

  Offenders subject to shorter sentences are not liable to statutory probation service supervision, but may approach probation staff for advice or assistance.
  109
  No offenders are placed on home detention curfew scheme in the first place without a probation service assessment of suitability.

  Prisoners (Repatriation)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals, excluding Irish nationals, serving prison sentences in the UK have(a) applied for repatriation to their home countries in the last two years to complete their sentences and (b) had their applications granted; and if he will make a statement. [71865]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of foreign national prisoners (excluding Irish nationals) in England and Wales who applied for repatriation to their home countries to complete their sentences were as follows:

  1997: 90

  1998: 112.

  The number1 of foreign national prisoners (excluding Irish nationals) transferred from England and Wales to their home country over the same period were:

  1997: 5

  1998: 20.

  Figures relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.
  1These figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  Violence (NHS and School Staff)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last three years for which figures are available, how many incidents of violence were recorded(a) against NHS staff, (b) against school staff and (c) in total; and if he will make a statement. [71862]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested for NHS and schools staff is not collected centrally. The total numbers of violent crimes notified to the Home Office in the last three financial years, which includes offences of violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences, are as follows:

  Number of offences

  1995–96

  319,675

  1996–97

  348,032

  1997–98

  352,873

  Bookmakers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the proposed changes to the Bookmakers Committee. [70991]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We issued a consultation letter to interested organisations seeking comments by 8 February. We have received representations from Tyndallwoods solicitors (on behalf of the British Betting Office Association, the National Association of 110
  Bookmakers and the Scottish Independent Bookmakers' Association), the Betting Office Licensees Association, William Hill, Coral, Ladbroke and Stanley Leisure.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the competitiveness of small and independent bookmakers of replacing the existing scheme by an increased flat percentage rate of levy payable on each bookmaking shop. [70992]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have made no such assessment. The structure and rates of levy are matters for the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [70785]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 570.

  Airside Transit Visas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people of which nationalities holding airside transit visas were(a) permitted to transit at a UK airport and (b) refused entry to the UK in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998; [70739]

  (2) how many people of which nationalities arriving in the UK holding airside transit visas did not leave the UK as required and how many of these (a) applied for asylum, (b) were recognised as refugees, (c) were granted exceptional leave and (d) were refused entry to the UK in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [70738]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is available only on holders of airside transit visas refused entry at the 12 largest ports, and is given in the table. Only 2 of these persons applied for asylum, both in 1996—a Ghanaian who made a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom before a decision was reached on the application, and a Nigerian whose application was refused.

  Number1

  1996

  China

  2

  Ghana

  2

  Iran

  1

  Iraq

  1

  Nigeria

  3

  Somalia

  1

  Total

  10

  1997

  Afghanistan

  1

  China

  1

  Ethiopia

  1

  Ghana

  1

  111

  Number1

  Iran

  4

  Sri Lanka

  2

  Uganda

  1

  Total

  11

  1998

  China

  1

  Ghana

  1

  Iran

  3

  Iraq

  2

  Slovakia

  2

  Sri Lanka

  2

  Yugoslavia

  2

  Total

  13

  1Data cover Heathrow (4 terminals, Gatwick (2), Manchester (2), Dover East, Harwich, Stansted, Waterloo.

  Serious Assaults
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of serious assaults reported to the police in England and Wales in 1998 resulted in charges being laid against the alleged perpetrators. [72022]

  Mr. Boateng
  These data are not collected centrally. For 1997 the proportion of all crimes of violence against the person, recorded by the police in England and Wales, which was cleared up by a charge or summons was 39 per cent.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71849]

  Mr. Straw
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Locke
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Nigel Locke of Vine Street, Kidderminster, can expect to receive compensation for the hand guns he has surrendered as required by law; and if he will make a statement concerning the reason for the delay in making payment to Mr. Locke. [72367]

  Mr. Boateng
  Compensation was paid under Option A of the statutory surrender scheme for small-calibre pistols on 25 November 1998 and under Option C of the scheme on 17 February 1999. The more complicated Option C claims, based on individual evidence of value, are dealt with at a second stage in the interests of efficiency and to smooth the payment process. I outlined the measures we 112
  are taking to speed the processing of these compensation claims in my reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 28 October 1998, Official Report, columns 179–80.

  Asylum Seekers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the implications for access to the social security benefits system of where asylum seekers seek refuge. [72019]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Whilst I have not commissioned any independent research, Home Office officials have examined this issue and have provided advice for Ministers.

  Review of Sex Offences
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which(a) (i) religious and (ii) other bodies and (b) individuals have been invited to take part in the Review of Sex Offences; [72343]

  (2) if he will list those (a) bodies and (b) individuals who have been invited to meet regularly with his Department's officials as part of the Review of Sex Offences. [72350]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following organisations and individuals form part of the steering group and external reference group of the review of sex offences under the chairmanship of the Home Office:(a)(i) Religious bodies

  CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education)

  Kairos in Soho

  Board of Deputies of British Jews

  (a) (ii) Other bodies

  NSPCC

  The Law Society

  Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Victim Support

  The Bar Council

  Barnardo's

  The Children's Society

  NCH Action for Children

  Blackliners

  Campaign to End Rape

  Rape Crisis Federation

  Stonewell

  St. Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre

  British Medical Association

  Women's National Commission

  MIND

  MENCAP

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Cabinet Office Women's Unit

  Department of Health

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department for Employment and Education

  Northern Ireland Office

  113

  Welsh Office

  Scottish Office

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  (b) Individuals

  Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

  Martin Bowley QC

  The Reverend Canon Donald Gray CBE TD PhD

  Reverend Chris Russell

  Dan Lambeth

  Professor Jennifer Temkin

  Dr. Liz Kelly.

  No other bodies or individuals have been asked to meet regularly with my officials but there will be consultation conferences and seminars where other organisations and individuals will be able to contribute their views.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the closure date for submissions to the Review of Sex Offences is likely to be extended; [72349]

  (2) which (a) bodies and (b) individuals have been consulted to date as part of the Review of Sex Offences; [72346]

  (3) if (a) bodies and (b) individuals who have not been invited to meet regularly with his Department's officials as part of the Review of Sex Offences will have any further opportunity to contribute to the Review after the closure date for submissions. [72348]

  Mr. Boateng
  The review of sex offences is being carried out in an open and inclusive manner. The terms of reference were set out in a consultation leaflet issued on 25 January. The leaflet "A Review of Sex Offences" invites views on how the criminal law should apply in the area of sex offences, and asks for responses by 19 March 1999. Some 4,000 copies of the leaflet have been sent out to a wide cross-section of organisations and individuals concerned with criminal justice and social policy. The leaflet is also available on the Internet.

  There are no plans formally to extend the period of this initial consultation which is intended to enable people to put their views on the present law in at the beginning so

  Table A: Number of persons convicted at all courts of buggery
  offences by type of offence, England and Wales, 1987–97

  Offence description

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Buggery with a boy under the age of sixteen or with a woman or animal

  195

  232

  183

  189

  168

  163

  136

  135

  86

  5

  —

  Buggery by a man with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  14

  18

  15

  13

  14

  15

  17

  23

  8

  2

  —

  Buggery by a man of the age of 21 or over with another male under the age of 21 with
  consent

  10

  20

  12

  9

  10

  12

  4

  7

  1

  —

  —

  Buggery by a man with another male other than above

  6

  15

  3

  4

  5

  3

  5

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home committing buggery or act of gross
  indecency with a male patient

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man committing buggery or an act of gross indecency with mentally disordered male patient who
  is subject to his care

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  20

  31

  26

  18

  26

  17

  20

  16

  14

  2

  —

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  3

  5

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  114
  that they can contribute directly to the work of the review at an early stage. The review would however like to continue to receive views as its work progresses.

  This initial consultation exercise will be followed by a series of conferences and seminars on particular aspects of sex offences, which will enable bodies and individuals who are not on the steering group or external review group to contribute to the work of the review.

  The recommendations of the review will form the basis of further public consultation exercise on the proposals that emerge.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Review of Sex Offences will be considering raising the ages of consent for sexual activity. [72347]

  Mr. Boateng
  The review will be considering the whole framework of sex offences, which would include whether the ages of consent should be raised. We have already made it absolutely clear that this Government will not accept any reduction in the age of consent below that of 16 years.

  Buggery
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of the years 1987 to 1997 of those convicted of the offence of buggery (1) in how many cases the victim or other party to the offence was aged(a) under 14, (b) 14 to 17, (c) 18 to 20, (d) 21 to 40, (e) 41 to 64 and (f) 65 years and over, giving in each age group the number who were (1) male and (2) female; [72345]

  (2) of those convicted of (a) indecent assault on a male, (b) indecency between males and (c) buggery in each of the years 1987 to 1997, for each of the age groups (i) under 14, (ii) 14 to 17, (iii) 18 to 20, (iv) 21 to 40, (v) 41 to 64 and (vi) 65 years and over, how many were sentenced to immediate custody; [72342]

  (3) for each of the years 1987 to 1997, what were the numbers of (a) prosecutions, (b) convictions and (c) cautions for (1) indecency between males and (2) buggery; and in each of the categories what were the numbers of those persons who were aged (i) under 14, (ii) 14 to 17, (iii) 18 to 20, (iv) 21 to 40, (v) 41 to 64 and (vi) 65 years and over. [72338]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available information is given in the tables. The Home Office Court Proceedings Database cannot identify the ages of victims to the detail required.
  115

  Table A: Number of persons convicted at all courts of buggery
  offences by type of offence, England and Wales, 1987–97

  Offence description

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Attempt by a man of the age of 21 or over to commit buggery with another male under the age
  of 16 or over without consent

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male other than above

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Assault with attempt to commit buggery

  4

  1

  6

  5

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  5

  Buggery and attempted buggery offences under S12 Sexual Offences Act 1956, as
  amended by S143 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male of a male under 16

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  29

  66

  70

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  3

  6

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  1

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male aged 16 or 17 with a male aged 16 or over

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male with another male not included above

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  7

  2

  9

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male with a female under 16

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  7

  17

  21

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  2

  —

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  —

  —

  Buggery or attempted buggery by a male with a female not included above

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  7

  10

  7

  Buggery or attempted buggery with an animal

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  4

  1

  Other buggery offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total buggery offences

  257

  328

  254

  241

  233

  213

  187

  189

  169

  113

  120

  1Not applicable

  Table B: Number of persons cautioned, prosecuted at
  magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences of (a) indecency between males and
  (b) buggery by age—1987–97, England and Wales

  Offence and age

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (a) Indecency between males

  Age 10–13

  Cautioned

  5

  4

  5

  9

  6

  2

  3

  —

  1

  2

  2

  Prosecuted

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Convicted

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age 14–17

  Cautioned

  22

  24

  36

  36

  13

  22

  10

  10

  8

  11

  5

  Prosecuted

  10

  15

  20

  20

  6

  7

  2

  6

  6

  1

  1

  Convicted

  9

  12

  15

  14

  5

  3

  —

  4

  3

  2

  —

  Age 18–20

  Cautioned

  20

  19

  24

  19

  22

  30

  22

  8

  8

  6

  13

  Prosecuted

  45

  58

  54

  53

  31

  26

  11

  11

  8

  7

  11

  Convicted

  42

  52

  46

  36

  15

  20

  6

  8

  3

  4

  3

  Age 21–40

  Cautioned

  60

  63

  77

  121

  180

  239

  259

  265

  176

  156

  183

  Prosecuted

  577

  770

  877

  673

  455

  401

  283

  289

  246

  135

  154

  Convicted

  523

  645

  772

  534

  349

  299

  192

  226

  203

  108

  112

  Age 41–64

  Cautioned

  28

  32

  43

  47

  82

  161

  145

  128

  133

  106

  90

  Prosecuted

  395

  612

  695

  534

  285

  304

  209

  280

  202

  124

  132

  Convicted

  353

  553

  606

  427

  232

  230

  169

  226

  176

  97

  105

  Age 65+

  Cautioned

  20

  21

  30

  18

  24

  22

  34

  26

  21

  23

  15

  Prosecuted

  32

  80

  70

  46

  37

  38

  35

  22

  32

  16

  20

  Convicted

  24

  71

  63

  37

  26

  27

  22

  16

  25

  8

  17

  All ages

  Cautioned

  155

  163

  215

  250

  327

  476

  473

  437

  347

  304

  308

  Prosecuted

  1,059

  1,535

  1,717

  1,326

  815

  776

  540

  608

  494

  283

  318

  Convicted

  951

  1,333

  1,503

  1,048

  627

  579

  389

  480

  410

  219

  237

  116 117

  Table B: Number of persons cautioned, prosecuted at
  magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences of (a) indecency between
  males and (b) buggery by age—1987–97, England and Wales

  Offence and age

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (b) Buggery offences

  Age 10–13

  Cautioned

  5

  7

  10

  13

  6

  4

  9

  8

  6

  5

  1

  Prosecuted

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  3

  1

  1

  Convicted

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Age 14–17

  Cautioned

  37

  34

  28

  42

  31

  30

  21

  30

  5

  7

  7

  Prosecuted

  22

  38

  28

  41

  41

  27

  25

  37

  15

  9

  7

  Convicted

  17

  26

  17

  24

  15

  16

  10

  17

  7

  3

  3

  Age 18–20

  Cautioned

  12

  14

  11

  6

  7

  4

  9

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Prosecuted

  27

  34

  27

  20

  27

  24

  24

  18

  7

  2

  7

  Convicted

  21

  30

  20

  17

  14

  20

  10

  11

  9

  4

  4

  Age 21–40

  Cautioned

  15

  18

  19

  21

  20

  18

  12

  14

  6

  4

  3

  Prosecuted

  178

  209

  182

  197

  192

  203

  184

  191

  108

  47

  51

  Convicted

  131

  158

  135

  109

  119

  95

  90

  100

  81

  45

  46

  Age 41–64

  Cautioned

  6

  7

  10

  7

  3

  7

  7

  5

  3

  2

  1

  Prosecuted

  97

  136

  126

  140

  130

  163

  129

  153

  103

  73

  86

  Convicted

  85

  109

  74

  88

  78

  72

  71

  52

  67

  54

  54

  Age 65+

  Cautioned

  —

  4

  3

  6

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Prosecuted

  4

  5

  13

  13

  11

  8

  9

  7

  9

  8

  25

  Convicted

  2

  5

  7

  2

  6

  10

  6

  7

  4

  7

  13

  All ages

  Cautioned

  75

  84

  81

  95

  69

  64

  58

  61

  22

  19

  17

  Prosecuted

  329

  423

  376

  413

  402

  426

  371

  410

  245

  140

  177

  Convicted

  257

  328

  254

  241

  233

  213

  187

  189

  169

  113

  120

  Table C: Number of persons sentenced at all courts to
  immediate custody for offences of (a) indecent assault on a male, (b) indecency
  between males and (c) buggery by age-group, England and Wales, 1987–97

  Offence and age group

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (a) Indecent assault on a male

  Age 10–13

  Total sentenced

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  1

  4

  6

  —

  2

  5

  Age 14–17

  Immediate custody

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  1

  3

  5

  3

  Total sentenced

  34

  37

  32

  32

  24

  30

  22

  28

  34

  41

  45

  Age 18–20

  Immediate custody

  9

  6

  11

  10

  5

  4

  8

  8

  8

  10

  3

  Total sentenced

  28

  32

  45

  35

  26

  23

  23

  22

  18

  22

  14

  Age 21–40

  Immediate custody

  107

  108

  85

  103

  88

  77

  92

  93

  84

  109

  107

  Total sentenced

  240

  253

  205

  259

  199

  191

  175

  168

  180

  176

  167

  Age 41–64

  Immediate custody

  93

  87

  83

  73

  84

  86

  92

  97

  151

  141

  141

  Total sentenced

  178

  193

  194

  209

  185

  197

  158

  166

  229

  205

  216

  Age 65 and over

  Immediate custody

  8

  11

  10

  9

  7

  5

  9

  7

  14

  15

  10

  Total sentenced

  26

  30

  27

  34

  29

  22

  30

  20

  25

  29

  20

  All ages

  Immediate custody

  219

  215

  191

  197

  186

  174

  205

  206

  260

  280

  264

  Total sentenced

  510

  548

  506

  571

  465

  464

  412

  410

  486

  475

  467

  (b) Indecency between males

  Age 10–13

  Total sentenced

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age 14–17

  Immediate custody

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total sentenced

  9

  12

  15

  14

  5

  3

  —

  4

  3

  2

  —

  Age 18–20

  Immediate custody

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total sentenced

  42

  52

  46

  36

  15

  20

  6

  8

  3

  4

  3

  Age 21–40

  Immediate custody

  19

  8

  13

  6

  5

  4

  4

  3

  5

  3

  3

  Total sentenced

  522

  645

  772

  532

  349

  299

  191

  226

  203

  108

  112

  118 119

  Table C: Number of persons sentenced at all courts to immediate custody for offences of (a) indecent assault on a male, (b) indecency
  between males and (c) buggery by age-group, England and Wales, 1987–97

  Offence and age group

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Age 41–64

  Immediate custody

  11

  12

  7

  5

  6

  3

  2

  4

  12

  1

  3

  Total sentenced

  353

  553

  605

  429

  231

  231

  169

  226

  176

  97

  104

  Age 65 and over

  Immediate custody

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total sentenced

  24

  71

  63

  37

  26

  27

  21

  16

  25

  8

  17

  All ages

  Immediate custody

  31

  20

  23

  11

  11

  8

  6

  8

  18

  4

  6

  Total sentenced

  950

  1,333

  1,502

  1,048

  626

  580

  387

  480

  410

  219

  236

  (c) Buggery offences

  Age 10–13

  Total sentenced

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Age 14–17

  Immediate custody

  4

  3

  —

  2

  8

  1

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Total sentenced

  17

  26

  17

  23

  16

  16

  10

  17

  7

  3

  3

  Age 18–20

  Immediate custody

  11

  13

  11

  7

  10

  8

  6

  7

  6

  2

  1

  Total sentenced

  21

  30

  20

  17

  15

  20

  10

  11

  9

  4

  4

  Age 21–40

  Immediate custody

  108

  117

  105

  79

  93

  75

  65

  68

  68

  40

  39

  Total sentenced

  131

  158

  135

  109

  119

  95

  90

  100

  81

  45

  46

  Age 41–64

  Immediate custody

  73

  95

  65

  81

  71

  55

  61

  50

  59

  50

  50

  Total sentenced

  85

  109

  74

  88

  78

  72

  71

  52

  67

  54

  54

  Age 65 and over

  Immediate custody

  2

  5

  7

  2

  5

  8

  5

  4

  4

  7

  12

  Total sentenced

  2

  5

  7

  2

  6

  10

  6

  7

  4

  7

  13

  All ages

  Immediate custody

  198

  233

  188

  171

  187

  147

  139

  130

  140

  99

  102

  Total sentenced

  257

  328

  254

  240

  235

  213

  187

  189

  169

  113

  120

  Indecency Offences (Males)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of years 1987 to 1997 what was the number of notifications for the offence of indecency between males. [72344]

  Mr. Boateng
  The numbers of recorded offences of indecency between males from 1987 to 1997 in England and Wales are as listed.

  Year

  Number

  1987

  1,127

  1988

  1,306

  1989

  2,022

  1990

  1,159

  1991

  965

  1992

  892

  1993

  671

  1994

  683

  1995

  727

  1996

  553

  1997

  520

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72010]
  120
  Mr. Straw
  Services performed by KPMG for my Department and the estimated remuneration made in each case are as follows:

  (a) From 1 May 1997 to date (ie 20 months)

  Service

  Amount (£)

  Management Consultancy Services

  181,784

  Training/Personnel services

  123,445

  Project Management/Participation

  2,382,012

  Audit Services

  144,279

  Benchmarking Services

  102,385

  Financial Advice

  122,385

  Total

  3,056,290

  (b) From 1 November 1995 to 30 April 1997 (ie 20 months prior to 1 May 1997)

  Service

  Amount (£)

  Management Consultancy Services

  7,984

  Training/Personnel services

  8,216

  Project Management/Participation

  40,537

  Audit Services

  3,000

  Benchmarking Services

  —

  Financial Services

  —

  Total

  59,737

  The information does not include data for the Prison Service for the period 1 November 1995 to 31 March 1996, as records were not kept before April 1996.

  Crime (Victims and Witnesses)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve services for victims of crime and witnesses. [72146]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will be announcing very shortly how we intend to improve services for victims and witnesses at magistrates' courts and the enhanced level of funding we shall be making available to Victim Support.

  Ministerial Meetings (US Ministers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Administration since 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved, and the name of the US counterpart. [71964]

  Mr. Straw
  I am in regular contact with Janet Reno, the United States Attorney General, and have had a number of meetings with her. In the period covered by the question, I also chaired a meeting of G8 counterparts, on 16 December 1998, which was conducted by video conference, at the request of Janet Reno.

  Since June 1998, there have been no other meetings between Ministers in my Department and their United States counterparts.

  CS Aerosol Incapacitants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the guidelines for the police on the use of personal issue, hand-held CS aerosol incapacitants. [71963]

  Mr. Boateng
  Copies of the guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) were placed in the Library on 17 April 1996, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I understand that the guidelines are currently being reviewed by ACPO. No guidelines are issued by the Home Office.

  Railways (Trespassing)
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisation has overall responsibility for prosecuting trespass on railways; and how many prosecutions for trespassing on railways have taken place in each year since 1996. [71531]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The initial decision to prosecute trespassers is taken by the British Transport Police but the final decision to continue a prosecution with a court hearing lies with the Crown Prosecution Service. The figures for prosecutions since 1996 are as follows:

  Prosecuted

  Cautioned/warned

  Total

  1996

  321

  4,390

  4,711

  1997

  589

  4,751

  5,310

  1998

  485

  4,574

  5,059

  Total

  1,395

  13,685

  15,080

  122
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1996 an individual identified by the police as causing a rail accident whilst trespassing on the railway has not subsequently been prosecuted. [71532]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The British Transport Police have no record of any occasion where an identified person who has caused a rail accident while trespassing on the railways has not been prosecuted.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the hunts which have been investigated by the police for possible offences since 1996 and (b) the investigations which related to (i) trespassing on railways and (ii) causing road accidents. [71530]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many women reported domestic violence for the years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98, indicating the methodology used in his estimate. [71782]

  Mr. Boateng
  Recorded crime statistics relate to offence type, not to the relationship between offender and victim. There is, therefore, no definitive figure for the number of crimes which are domestic in nature.

  Statistical returns submitted to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) by police forces in England and Wales have included a figure on domestic violence incidents, but, until now, the definition of "domestic violence" has been interpreted very differently between forces. From April 1999, HMIC will be adopting a narrower, but common, definition.

  The 1996 British Crime Survey included a new computerised self-completion questionnaire designed to give the most reliable findings to date on the extent of domestic violence in England and Wales.

  The report on the findings of this questionnaire (Home Office Research Study 191) was published on 21 January 1999, and a copy has been placed in the Library. 4.2 per cent. of women said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner in the last year. The police were told of 9 per cent. of incidents against women who reported one or two attacks, and 22 per cent. of incidents against women who reported three or more attacks. Medical staff were the next most likely to hear of incidents.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted drug dealers now serving prison sentences in England and Wales who have been convicted in the last five years, and were ordered by the trial judge to hand over financial assets thought to have been acquired as a result of dealing in drugs, have not done so to date; and if he will make a statement. [69806]
  123
  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally to the detail required.

  The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, shows that between 1993 to 1997, 22,959 offenders were sentenced to immediate custody at the Crown Court for drug trafficking offences. Out of these, a confiscation order was imposed on 5,322 (23 per cent.).

  Mediation UK
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with Mediation UK for core funding for 1999–2000. [71542]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mediation UK does valuable work, which contributes to the policy objectives of a number of Government Departments. It has not previously been funded by the Home Office but I am meeting its Director, this week, to discuss possible ways of keeping the organisation in being while longer-term funding issues are considered.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70033]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The information sought could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appointed Philip Sales as First Junior 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 barristers. 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.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [71287]
  124
  Mr. Straw
  It is not possible to identify the amounts in my Department's budget which can be specifically attributed to spending on people with disabilities. Such spending is contained within wider budgets allocated to different parts of my Department.

  South Devon Hunt
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress of the investigation by Devon and Cornwall Police into the road accidents on the A38 near Ashburton in December 1998 involving the South Devon Hunt. [71590]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary that the investigation into the two accidents is nearing completion and that they will be writing to those involved in the near future.

  Mink-keeping Licences
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions have been brought and (b) convictions have been secured against individuals in connection with protests against establishments holding a mink-keeping licence in the last five years. [71312]

  Mr. Boateng
  Protesters would not be prosecuted unless they were committing an offence, for example, aggravated trespass, criminal damage, or breach of the peace, or breaking conditions which may be imposed on processions and assemblies by the police under the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify the circumstances of an offence to the detail required.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. [71359]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's view on the performance and effectiveness of the Commission was set out in a recent note for the Home Affairs Select Committee, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission has been considering the case of Mr. John Kamara; and when he expects them to reach a decision. [71360]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand that the Commission began work on Mr. Kamara's application in July 1997, and that the case is due to be considered next month by a case committee of three Commission members, which may either decide whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, or that further investigation is required.

  Trespass (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of trespass onto private property have resulted in prosecution in each of the past 10 years. [71526]
  125
  Mr. Boateng
  Information given in the table is for criminal prosecutions under sections 61 and 68 to 71 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  In the past, the police and courts had dealt with trespass situations covered by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act using pre-existing powers and offences. These included sections of the Public Order Act 1986, common law breach of the peace, public nuisance and criminal damage. Information on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify the circumstances of such offences.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for criminal trespass offences under sections 61, 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, England and Wales, 1995–97

  Offence description

  1995

  1996

  1997

  S61 Power to remove trespassers on land

  4

  4

  15

  S68 Offence of aggravated trespass

  111

  359

  160

  S69 Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass

  15

  27

  25

  S70(pt)1 Take part in prohibited assembly

  —

  —

  —

  S70(pt)1 Inciting another to take part in a prohibited assembly

  2

  2

  —

  S70(pt)1 Inciting another to take part in a prohibited trespassory assembly

  1

  2

  —

  S712 Ignoring a directive not to proceed in the direction of the assembly (trespassory)

  —

  1

  —

  1As added to Part II S14A and 14B of Public Order Act 1986

  2As added to Part II S14C of Public Order Act 1986

  Road Policing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he is taking to ensure greater consistency among police forces in road policing. [71479]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we provided the means to tackle local road policing issues. In August 1998 we set new overarching aims and objectives for the police. The importance of road policing is emphasised in both the objective of improving road safety and the objective of reducing crime and the fear of crime. In November, in his letter to forces about his new development priorities, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary specifically emphasised the importance of road policing.

  The recent thematic inspection of road policing by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary concluded that not enough attention had previously been given to road policing and its recommendations seek the proper integration of the function which would lead to greater consistency of approach across forces.

  National Insurance Numbers and Passports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many illegally obtained(a) National Insurance numbers and (b) UK passports are currently held by non-UK nationals. [71097]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no figures available on illegally obtained United Kingdom passports currently in the possession of non-United Kingdom nationals. The Passport Agency keeps records of the numbers of fraudulent passport applications detected. The level of abuse detected in 1998 was 1,368 applications, amounting to under 0.03 per cent. of total passport issues. The vast majority of these abuses related to fraudulent applications detected before a passport was issued.
  126
  The Home Office has no responsibility for National Insurance numbers; but the Department of Social Security has indicated that they have no figures relating to non-United Kingdom nationals and illegally obtained National Insurance numbers.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras are situated in each county police force area. [71438]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available centrally. The enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for each individual chief officer and they decide whether to deploy such technology in the light of their local conditions and policing priorities.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists have been convicted of riding on pedestrian footpaths in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [71550]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available information for the years 1995 to 1997 (latest available) is given in the table. 1998 data will begin to become available in the Spring of this year.

  Number of persons cautioned and convicted for cycling on footpaths1, England and Wales, 1995–1997

  Disposal

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Cautioned

  204

  268

  270

  Convicted

  282

  383

  594

  1Offences under Highways Act 1835 S72 (as amended by Local Government Act 1888 s85(1); the Statute Law Revision (no2) Act 1888; Highways Act 1959 Sch25; Criminal Justice Act 1967 3rd Sch; Criminal Justice Act 1982 ss39 and 46 and Sch3); Metropolitan Police Act 1839 s54(7), and Bylaws.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 February 1999, c. 654]Work undertaken by nationals living in the United Kingdom under the au pair scheme will not be subject to the National Minimum Wage provisions. The recommended weekly allowance will be kept under review.

  Drugs and Driving
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of driving while under the influence of illegal drugs. [69111]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are working closely with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch is researching into the possible development of roadside drugs screening technology and we support the Association of Chief Police Officers in its work to ensure that officers have the appropriate training to enforce the
  127
  current legislation as effectively as possible. We will consider possible changes in legislation in the light of the results of the DETR research into the incidence of drugs in road fatalities.

HEALTH

  Minimum Wage and Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the NHS of(a) the national minimum wage and (b) the working time regulations. [69762]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]There are no national rates of pay for adult staff working in the National Health Service at or below the national Minimum Wage level of £3.60 per hour.

  Responsibility for implementing the Working Time Regulations is for local National Health Service employers. Information on the cost of implementing the regulations is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual additional cost to the NHS resulting from the European working time directive. [69741]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell),Official Report, columns 127.

  Legal Services
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70032]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The information 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 barristers from 42 different sets of chambers. The Attorney-General will shortly appoint a third panel of very junior barristers.

  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.

  Departments may use firms of solicitors in addition to Her Majesty's 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.
  128
  The Department of Health Headquarters (being the Departmental offices other than the NHS Executive regional offices) has not used London solicitors during the time under consideration.

  As part of an arrangement made with the regional health authorities prior to their absorption into the Department as regional offices of the NHS Executive on 1 April 1996, the Department have continued to use outside solicitors (not all in London) for litigation that was already underway and for land transactions. However, identifying each firm of solicitors and specifying the amount paid to them would involve disproportionate cost.

  Blood
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure a sufficient supply of blood, plasma and other blood products within the National Blood Service over the millennium fortnight. [70168]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Executive is working closely with the National Blood Authority to ensure sufficient stocks and contingency arrangements are in place. At local level health authorities and NHS trusts will be working with blood centres to plan adequate supplies for transfusion. The National Blood Authority's Bio Products Laboratory will be manufacturing and issuing sufficient supplies of blood products, which have a longer shelf life.

  Health Technology Assessment
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's expenditure on the health technology assessment for each year from 1992 to 1998. [69781]

  Ms Jowell
  Expenditure in the National Health Service Health Technology Assessment Programme from 1992 to 1998 was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  nil

  1993–94

  nil

  1994–95

  nil

  1995–96

  1.8

  1996–97

  4.4

  1997–98

  3.8

  1998–99

  16.3

  1Estimate

  Copies of the "Annual Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1998" will be placed in the Library. This report gives details of expenditure by project.

  Clinical Perfusionists
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reply his Department sent to the letter of 5 November 1998 to its Chief Scientific Officer from Her Majesty's Coroner for Inner South District, Greater London, following an inquest into the death of a baby, asking that urgent consideration be given to the early introduction of statutory regulation of clinical perfusionists; [70173]
  129
  (2) what progress has been made (a) towards state registration of clinical perfusionists and (b) in dealing with the danger to the public posed by unaccredited perfusionists. [70172]

  Mr. Denham
  My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman responded directly to Her Majesty's Coroner on 16 December 1998 indicating that we expect the employment of clinical perfusionists in the National Health Service to be confined to professionally accredited practitioners and are consulting the profession on the practical steps required to implement this effectively. We are also considering options for the regulation of the profession in the longer term.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [69958]

  Ms Jowell
  Of the Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) none admits members of the public to all board or committee meetings.

  Of the Department's advisory NDPBs the following hold public meetings:

  The Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing

  The Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority.

  In none of these cases is this under a statutory requirement.

  Of the Department's advisory NDPBs the following have lay or consumer representatives on the boards:

  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  The Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  The Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing

  The Advisory Committee on the Micro-biological Safety of Food

  The Committee of the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food. Consumer Products and the Environment

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy

  The Committee on the Safety of Medicines

  The Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment

  The Expert Advisory Group on AIDS

  The Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  The Medicines Commission

  The Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education

  The United Kingdom Advisory Panel for Health Care Workers Infected with Bloodborne Viruses

  The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority

  The Unrelated Live Transport Regulatory Authority.

  In the case of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing and the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee this is under a statutory requirement.

  Chiropody Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultations there were per chiropodist in England in the latest year available, in each health authority, in terms of(a) all consultations, (b) initial contact and (c) number of people seen for the first time that year. [70340]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available will be placed in the Library.

  ChildLine
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much financial assistance he has provided to ChildLine in the past three years; and how much he is making available to ChildLine for the next three years. [70712]

  Mr. Hutton
  ChildLine were awarded a grant under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for a three year period in 1996–97. They received £183,000 in 1996–97, £173,000 in 1997–98, and £163,000 in 1998–99. ChildLine have also received a Section 64 Grant of £60,000 over the last three years for their special helpline for children in care.

  We intend to award ChildLine a Renewal Core grant under the Section 64 Grant award scheme for the next three years. We will be making £187,500 available in 1999–2000, £180,000 in 2000–01 and £175,000 in 2001–02. In addition, we will be making £50,000 a year available for the three financial years 1999–2000, 2000–01, and 2001–02 so that ChildLine may provide a helpline for looked after children.

  National Reference Cost Tables
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sources of data are used in compiling the National Reference Cost tables for NHS trusts. [71064]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Schedule of Reference Costs, published in November 1998, is based on information supplied by National Health Service trusts. The information is based on the 1997–98 final accounts. The information is submitted to the NHS Executive by June 30 each year, on the same timescales as the final accounts information and is therefore retrospective in nature.

  Dental Services (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of dental services in Herefordshire by the National Health Service. [70742]

  Mr. Denham
  There are 70 dentists treating patients under National Health Service provisions in Herefordshire. The Community Dental Service and an emergency dental service also provide NHS treatment. We have approved two applications under Investing in Dentistry, together intended to allow 4,000 new patients to receive NHS treatment.

  Medical Records (Access)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will abolish charges for patients to access their medical records; and if he will make a statement. [70945]
  131
  Mr. Denham
  We are considering the issue of access charges in the light of the Data Protection Act 1998 but no decision has yet been made.

  Carers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the number of carers who are currently pursuing (i) part-time and (ii) full-time courses of further or higher education in(a) Bolton, (b) the North West and (c) England; [70793]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of carers in (a) Bolton, (b) the North West and (c) England; [70791]

  (3) what is his estimate of the number of carers over the age of 25 years in (a) Bolton, (b) the North West and (c) England. [70792]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are an estimated 4.9 million carers in England, of whom 4.6 million are over the age of 25 years. Of these, around 900,000 (800,000 of whom are aged over 25) are in the North West. This information comes from the General Household Survey for 1995 and cannot be used reliably to estimate the numbers of carers in individual cities or local authority areas. The General Household Survey also suggests that around 2 per cent. of carers are in full-time education in England. The numbers in the survey are too small to allow estimates to be made for the North West or for Bolton. There is no information on part-time students in the General Household Survey.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the factors which prevent those carers who wish to enter further or higher education from so doing; [70801]

  (2) what plans he has to enable carers to pay for substitute care when pursuing a course of further or higher education. [70800]

  Mr. Hutton
  Carers may be prevented from entering further or higher education by the extent of their caring responsibilities, particularly if they are providing care for a large number of hours each week. Other factors which may have an effect include the availability of substitute care and the effects of caring on the carer's own health and wellbeing. Our National Strategy for Carers, "Caring about Carers", copies of which are in the Library, sets out proposals to meet carers' needs better than in the past. The availability of substitute care, to give carers a break from their caring responsibilities, will be enhanced by additional funding of £140 million over the next three years for England.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the extra moneys for carers announced on 8 February 1999,Official Report, columns 21–33, will be paid (a) through local authorities, (b) direct to carers or (c) by other means. [70894]

  Mr. Hutton
  The additional £140 million to help carers to have a break from their caring responsibilities will be paid as a special grant and included in allocations to local authorities. The draft special grant report will be published shortly.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much per carer for years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 will be provided by the £140 million additional
  132
  funding for England announced on 8 February 1999, Official Report, columns 21–33, (a) in England, (b) in south-west Hertfordshire and (c) in Hertfordshire. [70895]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local authorities, together with their health authority partners, will be responsible for assessing the needs of carers in their area for services to allow them to have a break from their caring responsibilities, for establishing whether current services meet carers' needs and for extending the range of services provided where this appears necessary. They will also be responsible for deciding who is eligible to receive services. In assessing how to use the additional funding, local authorities will take account of their current expenditure on respite care.

  Allergies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission further research into the causes of the increasing incidence of hay fever, eczema, asthma and similar allergies; [65327]

  (2) what evidence his Department has identified linking asthma, eczema and similar allergies to chemical by-products from (a) home heating systems and (b) car exhaust fumes. [65328]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]The Department has carried out detailed investigations into the possible links between air pollution and asthma. The Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants published an extensive report on the subject, "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", in 1995. The report made it clear that, while asthma and other atopy based diseases, such as hay fever and eczema, had increased considerably in many western countries over the past thirty years, this increase was unlikely to be caused by air pollution. The report acknowledged that exposure to some air pollutants could adversely affect individuals already suffering from asthma and trigger attacks.

  Since then, evidence that air pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide (an indoor as well as an outdoor air pollutant) and diesel particles, may enhance the body's biological response to allergens has strengthened. There does not appear to be any convincing evidence that eczema is related to exposure to air pollution.

  The prevention and treatment of asthma and allergic conditions are high priority topics within the Department's research programmes, including the £4 million National Health Service asthma management programme. The Department also funds a number of research projects as part of its joint air pollution research programme with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Medical Research Council, which are examining the impact of air pollutants on asthma sufferers as well as a separate joint programme on indoor air pollutants and damp in the home. In addition to this, the Medical Research Council also funds a substantial Government programme of basic research into asthma and allergies amounting to over £2 million in 1997–98.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [71290]
  133
  Mr. Hutton
  The money allocated by the Department each year to health authorities is not differentiated according to the patient groups for whom services are to be provided. At the local level, most service agreements between health authorities and National Health Service trusts and other provider bodies for hospital and community health services relate to general service areas or to specific medical and surgical specialties, which will cover disabled people like others. The same is true of expenditure on family health services.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1999
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [71276]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Executive appointed "Disability Matters", a specialist consultancy, to develop a proposed action programme for the implementation of Section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 across the NHS. We plan to issue guidance, based on the report submitted by "Disability Matters" later this year.

  It is for individual social services authorities to assess the impact on them of the implementation of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from October 1999. All social services authorities in England were included in the consultation carried out by the Department for Education and Employment on the implementation of the new requirements. The vast majority of social services departments were aware of what their new duties entailed, and were content with the proposals.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71342]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following official visits between 1 January 1998 and 11 February 1999:Airedale Hospital, Keighley; Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, Selly Park General Practitioner Commissioning Group, Birmingham; Moselely Hall Hospital, Birmingham; Hartlepool General Hospital, Hartlepool; North Tees General Hospital, Stockton; Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester; Glaxo Wellcome, Stevenage; Halton General Hospital, Runcorn; Homerton Hospital, London; Holly St. Hackney Development, Hackney; Whipps Cross Hospital, London; United Leeds Teaching Hospital, Leeds; South Buckinghamshires Ground Breaking Ceremony, High Wycombe; Minor Surgery Unit, Slough; St. Cross Hospital, Rugby; Shipley Community Hospital, Bradford; Neptune Health Park, Tipton; Jagonari Womens Centre, London; Gloucester Royal Infirmary, Gloucester; GP Surgery, Pontypridd; West Derby St. Liverpool; Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup; Ladywell Unit, Lewisham; North Middlesex Hospital, London; Bart's WRVS Shop, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London; Hebden Bridge Health Centre, Hebden Bridge; Royal Free Hospital, London; NW Region GP Practice. Preesall, Lancashire; Trafford General Hospital, Trafford; Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Greenwich; St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London; Indian Senior Citizens Centre, Whalley Range, Manchester; Carlisle Private Finance Initiative Ceremony, Carlisle; Workington Health Action
  134
  Zone, Workington; Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester; SMA Medical Centre, Leyton; Norfolk Mental Health Care Trust, Norwich; University of Nottingham, Nottingham; Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester; National Records Monument Centre, Swindon; Princess Margaret Hospital, Swindon; Swindon Health Centre, Swindon; Norwich Research Park, Norwich; Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare Trust, Norwich; Halifax General Hospital, Halifax; Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust, Halifax; Middleton Lodge Practice, New Ollerton; Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City; Women & Childrens Centre, Deptford; Royal Lancaster Hospital, Lancaster, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool; Preston Acute Services, Preston; Red Cross Exhibition, Brighton; Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel; Birmingham Childrens Hospital, Birmingham; Southern Grove, Tower Hamlets, London; University of Central Lancashire, Preston; East Lancashire Health Authority, Nelson; GP Premises, Blackford House, Bury; Bury and Rochdale Health Authority, Bury; New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton; Bromley PFI Ceremony, Orpington; Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough; Amber Project, Plaistow; Meadowfields Medical Practice, Challerton, Derby; Mary Seacole Research Centre, Leicester; Royal London Hospital, London; London Ambulance Service, London; Community Integrated Care Team, London; Whittington Hospital, London; Abbey Road Health Centre, London; Hodgson Medical Centre, Peterborough, Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust, Bedford.

  The Department does not hold records of official visits on a constituency basis and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report of the working party on the problems of incontinence. [71702]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 2 September 1998, we announced the details of the review of continence policy which involves representatives from the health service, social services and voluntary organisations. This review will lead to updated guidance on continence services which we plan to issue in the spring.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71508]

  Ms Jowell
  The reviews and taskforces, established since 1 May 1997, which have published their final reports are:

  Review of the law relating to surrogacy

  Review of evidence relating to silicon breast implants

  Review of the breast screening programme in Devon and the implications for the breast screening programme as a whole

  Strategic review of Health Services in London

  Review of the latest information available on inequalities in Health

  Independent review of proposals for the transfer of bulk blood processing and testing from Liverpool to Manchester

  Review of NHS Charter

  Ministerial task force on the Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review.

  135
  The reviews and taskforces, established since the 1 May 1997, which have yet to publish reports are:

  Mental Health Act Review

  Thoracic Surgical Services Review

  United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority Review

  Review of general anaesthesia and sedation with dental treatment

  Review of the wheelchair voucher scheme and the provision of electrical and indoor wheelchairs

  Eight regional task forces to support the Waiting List Action Team

  NHS efficiency task force

  NHS task force on staff involvement.

  Information on advisory groups and on the costs incurred by reviews and taskforces could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are followed in resolving differences of preference between authorities and individual patients as to their transfer from a learning disability hospital to alternative care; how many patients have been moved against their express wish over the last three years; and with what medical consequences for the patients involved. [71487]

  Mr. Hutton
  The move of patients from hospital to alternative care is the responsibility of local statutory authorities, taking into account the needs and wishes of people with learning disabilities, their carers and/or their families.

  Guidance has been issued to local authorities and health authorities stressing the importance of joint working between relevant agencies, providers and professionals which involve users and carers, in providing a well co-ordinated range of services to meet the diverse needs of this client group.

  However, we do not have any centrally available information about the number of patients moved from learning disability hospitals against their wishes in the last 3 years.

  Percentage

  Distribution of practices2

  Proportion of overspend attributable to each type of practice3

  £1m+ overspenders1

  Dispensing

  Prescribing

  Dispensing

  Prescribing

  Bury and Rochdale

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4

  96

  0

  100

  Cambridge and Huntington

  57

  43

  66

  34

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  49

  51

  57

  43

  East and North Hertfordshire

  13

  87

  12

  88

  East Kent

  22

  79

  16

  84

  East Lancashire

  6

  94

  9

  91

  East London and the City

  0

  100

  0

  100

  East Riding

  19

  81

  17

  83

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  12

  88

  8

  92

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Gloucestershire

  33

  67

  45

  55

  Leeds

  7

  93

  5

  95

  Leicestershire

  15

  85

  24

  76

  Lincolnshire

  58

  42

  87

  13

  Liverpool

  0

  100

  0

  100

  136
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently accommodated within hospitals for learning disabilities. [71488]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. However, it is estimated that there were 8,400 in-patients in hospitals under the care of a mental handicap consultant at 31 March 1998.

  Mental Health Service (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department plans to submit the business case for mental health service provision in Leeds to the Treasury. [71553]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Executive has been actively evaluating the full business case submitted by the Leeds Community and Mental Health Services National Health Service Trust in November 1998. The trust and Bradford and Northern Housing Association, the private finance initiative partner, are being advised on the further work that needs to be done before the full business case can be submitted to Her Majesty's Treasury for approval.

  Family Health Services Drugs Expenditure
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities overspent their Family Health Services drugs allocations in 1997–98; and in those health authorities which overspent the allocation by over £1 million, what proportion of practices were(a) dispensing and (b) prescribing; what proportion of the overspend was attributable to each type of practice; and in each case what was the expenditure on branded drugs where a generic equivalent exists. [71574]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Seventy-eight Health Authorities overspent their family health services drugs allocations in 1997–98. The total net overspend was £69 million. Of these overspending health authorities, forty four overspent their allocation by less than £1 million. For the thirty four health authorities which overspent their allocation by greater than £1 million, the available information is provided in the table. Data for expenditure on branded drugs where a generic equivalent exists are not available.
  137

  Percentage

  Distribution of practices2

  Proportion of overspend attributable to each type of
  practice3

  £1m+ overspenders1

  Dispensing

  Prescribing

  Dispensing

  Prescribing

  Manchester

  0

  100

  0

  100

  North Essex

  38

  62

  34

  66

  North West Anglia

  48

  53

  58

  42

  Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire

  5

  95

  6

  94

  Salford and Trafford

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Shropshire

  32

  68

  28

  72

  South Cheshire

  17

  83

  17

  83

  South Essex

  6

  94

  12

  88

  South Staffordshire

  20

  80

  37

  63

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  8

  92

  5

  95

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Stockport

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Suffolk

  47

  53

  51

  49

  West Kent

  23

  77

  27

  73

  West Pennine

  0

  100

  0

  100

  West Sussex

  19

  81

  20

  80

  Wigan and Bolton

  0

  100

  0

  100

  Wiltshire

  24

  76

  39

  61

  1Source: Allocations from EL(96) 107 and outturns from PPA PACT
  data

  2Source: PPA

  3Source: PPA, HA Prescribing Annual Returns Statement

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the overall Family Health Service drugs expenditure is accounted for by dispensing general practitioner practices. [72622]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997–98, 15 per cent. of Family Health Services drugs expenditure was accounted for by dispensing general practitioner practices.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a cost benefit analysis of(a) the use of complementary medicine in the NHS and (b) the use of drugs; and if he will make a statement. [71921]

  Ms Jowell
  Given the wide range of treatments available both through orthodox and complementary medicine, it would be very difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about their relative cost/benefits as a whole. The National Research Register includes details of projects which have examined the clinical and cost effectiveness of certain types of treatment or intervention for individual conditions, including complementary therapies. The Register is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the Internet at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the spending on holistic therapy projects for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [71918]

  Ms Jowell
  The amount spent by each health authority on holistic therapy projects of any sort is not recorded centrally, and the funding of research projects is handled separately. A report published in 1995 by the Medical Care Research Unit of Sheffield University showed that some 40 per cent. of general practitioner partnerships in 138
  England provided some form of complementary therapy for their National Health Service patients.

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS research and development levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR). This is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the Internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR also contains many details of projects funded by the MRC and other funders.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make osteopathy treatment available on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [71920]

  Ms Jowell
  The availability of osteopathy within the National Health Service, as with any other forms of treatment, reflects decisions taken locally by health authorities and general practitioners about the clinical and cost effectiveness of such services and the priority given to their provision in the light of competing demands for the resources. A report published in 1995 by the Medical Care Research Unit of Sheffield University showed that some 40 per cent. of general practitioner partnerships in England provided some form of complementary therapy for their NHS patients.

  Adoption
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend family law to give birth relatives access to information about adopted members of their family. [72041]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans at present to amend the Adoption Act 1976 to change the provision enabling birth relatives to have information on adopted relatives.

  Mid-Essex Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Mid-Essex Hospital NHS Trust area have been waiting(a) 13 to 25 weeks and (b) more than 26 weeks to see a consultant at the latest date for which figures are available. [72154]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 185. This provides the latest published figures for outpatient waiting times. Figures for the end of December 1998 will be available from 25 February.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if, in considering the cost effectiveness of beta-interferon, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be allowed to consider social care and social security costs and lost tax revenues as well as health-related costs; [72567]

  (2) what time-scale he will expect the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to work to in drawing up advice on the role of beta-interferon. [72566]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently consulting on a discussion paper,Faster access to modern treatment, which sets out its detailed proposals for how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will carry out appraisals of the clinical and cost effectiveness of individual health treatments. Until responses have been received and considered by Ministers, no firm decisions will be taken either on the topics to be referred to NICE, or on the precise methods of appraisal to be used.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71850]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's communications planning unit includes an officer whose job is to make more systematic and orderly the process of responding to criticism on Government policy, and, in particular to inaccurate or misleading allegations. This is in common with other departments, where the work of press office includes responding to misinformed allegations. The salary of that officer is £22,746.95. Three hundred and ninety-nine rebuttals have been issued since May 1997.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72009]

  Ms Jowell
  Detailed information about the services provided for the Department by KPMG, and their costs, are not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  140
  The total for all expenditure on services provided by KPMG is:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  471,767

  1996–97

  298,897

  1997–98

  331,058

  1998–99 (until 9 February)

  115,068

  plus £21,949 for work commissioned by the National Health Service Estates Agency between September 1995 and March 1997.

  Silicone Breast Implants
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he has received from professional bodies on the use of silicone breast implants; [72523]

  (2) what advice he has received from his scientific advisers on the long-term effects on the human body of silicone breast implants. [72524]

  Ms Jowell
  In response to continuing concerns expressed by some implanted women, an Independent Review Group was set up by the Chief Medical Officer in May 1997 to review the possible health issues associated with silicone gel breast implants and to examine the issues relating to pre-operative patient information. The members of the group were selected for their independent views, their knowledge and understanding of the issues and lack of any vested interest in the conclusions reached. The group reported back to the Chief Medical Officer in July 1998 and a copy of that report is available in the Library.

  The Independent Review Group took evidence from various organisations and individuals, including a representative of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons and the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, and a representative of the British Association of Cosmetic Surgeons. Subsequent to the group's report, the Royal College of Surgeons has agreed to develop multidisciplinary clinical standards for breast implant surgery.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of silicone breast implants. [72522]

  Ms Jowell
  In July 1998, the Independent Review Group on silicone gel breast implants concluded that, on the basis of the information available, silicone gel breast implants were not associated with any greater health risk than other surgical implants.

  Copies of the group's full report are available in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, columns 576–77, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71020]
  141
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Expenditure by Cabinet Office non-departmental public bodies was included in my previous answer to the hon. Member. The table lists the expenditure since May 1997

  £

  Public Opinion Research

  Television, radio and newspaper advertising

  Direct Mail

  Publicity

  Central Computer Telecommunications Agency

  nil

  1,620

  19,066

  486,259

  Central Office of Information

  nil

  nil

  31,329

  50,362

  Civil Service College

  nil

  nil

  105,644

  341,919

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1,000

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  nil

  nil

  nil

  11,504

  Security and Facilities Division1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  35,649

  The Buying Agency

  551

  10,649

  12,843

  662,434

  1Operated as Security and Facilities Executive Agency until July 1998.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71854]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in my Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  This is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not recorded separately from other tasks.

  Women's Unit
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the arrangements and mechanisms whereby the Women's Unit will ensure that women's interests are taken into account in the development and delivery of policies by all Government Departments in line with the performance targets. [71533]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" was issued jointly by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in November 1998. These guidelines, which were placed in the Library on 5 November 1998, show how to ensure that both policy making and service design consider the impact upon women and other groups. They have been sent to all Departments and agencies under cover of a note from the Cabinet Secretary emphasising their importance. This updated previous guidelines issued in 1992.

  As set out in the Cabinet Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) (published as part of the "Public Services for the Future" White Paper in December 1998), the Women's Unit will develop further guidance for policy makers by the end of the year on how to consider the needs and requirements of women. This will
  142
  by the Department's Executive Agencies, including own expenditure by Central Office of Information and the Buying Agency, which are Trading Funds.

  supplement the policy appraisal guidance. This will be circulated to all Government Departments and placed in the Library when complete.

  The Women's Unit worked closely with Her Majesty's Treasury and other Departments in the development on PSAs which reflect women's interests. A performance target on tackling domestic violence against women has been included in the PSA for the Home Office and on the National Childcare Strategy in the PSA for the Department for Education and Employment. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Women sits on the relevant Cabinet Committee which will be monitoring Departments' performance. Monitoring will cover the handling of cross-cutting issues, including women's interests.

  The Women's Unit convenes a women's policy group of senior officials from Departments across Whitehall with responsibility for women's issues in their Departments. This group maintains an overview of activity to ensure that women's interests are taken into account coherently and consistently.

  The Director of the Women's Unit is also responsible for the Women's National Commission (WNC), the advisory non-departmental public body on women. The WNC represents some 50 organisations with around 8 million members, and provides advice and comment on all aspects of Government policy.

SCOTLAND

  Consultancies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on (i) internal and (ii) external consultancy in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [69250]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]It is not possible to provide the information for the Scottish Office and its Agencies in the time available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, placing a copy of my letter in the Library.

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

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the(a) salary costs and (b) other costs of special advisers in his Department in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69264]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]Special Advisers' salaries are negotiated individually within the three-band range announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 354. Individual salaries and pension contributions are confidential. Other costs of the Special Advisers in my Department since I took up office amounted to around £35,000 in 1997–98 and are estimated to amount to £57,000 in 1998–99. It is not possible to predict the costs for 1999–2000.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of paying the proposed salary rises for NHS staff in Scotland,(a) in total and (b) by category; if he will estimate the additional cost of an additional 0.5 per cent. increase (i) in total and (ii) by category; how much extra each grade of Scottish nurse would receive if given the same percentage increase as the equivalent grade in London; and if he will make a statement. [69853]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The total cost of the awards is £89 million. Details of cost for particular categories are as follows:

  £ million

  Nurses and Midwives

  49

  PAMs

  7

  Hospital Doctors and Dentists

  13

  Ophthalmic Practitioners

  1

  General Medical Practitioners

  15

  General Dental Practitioners

  4

  The estimated additional cost of an 0.5 per cent. increase in total by category would be as follows:

  £ million

  Nurses and Midwives

  4.5

  PAMs

  0.6

  Hospital Doctors and Dentists

  1.7

  Ophthalmic Practitioners

  0.2

  General Medical Practitioners

  1.2

  General Dental Practitioners

  0.6

  Total

  8.8

  Each grade of Scottish nurse would receive between £398 and £750 per annum extra if given the same percentage increase as the equivalent grade in London.

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

  Deer
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to safeguard the public in West Sutherland from increased numbers of straying deer. [69597]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The Deer Commission for Scotland is encouraging Deer Management Groups and estate owners to take measures as appropriate to reduce the numbers of deer straying onto roads or feeding on roadside verges, for example by introducing supplementary feeding as a method of drawing deer away from public highways. The Commission is also continuing to discuss with the roads authorities and the police matters such as road design, installation of warning signs, and use of wildlife roadside reflectors or fencing. These authorities also have discretion to introduce lower speed limits in certain circumstances.

  Although deer numbers in the area have not increased, there is evidence to suggest that deer are spending more time on lower ground.

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

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [69954]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The following bodies publish minutes of meetings:

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  All do so voluntarily and not under a statutory requirement.

  (b) The following bodies publish the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings:

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  All do so voluntarily and not under a statutory requirement.

  (c) The following bodies publish a register of members' interests:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Hannah Research Institute*

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  145

  Moredun Research Institute*

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting of Scotland

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  Rowett Research Institute*

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments in Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council*

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology*

  Scottish Crop Research Institute*

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the other voluntarily.

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

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [69987]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The following bodies admit members of the public to all board and committee meetings:

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  All do so voluntarily and not under a statutory requirement.

  (b) The following bodies hold public meetings:

  Crofters Commission*

  Deer Commission for Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Moredun Research Institute

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board*

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  146

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Screen

  Scottish Sports Council

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the others voluntarily.

  (c) The following bodies have lay or consumer representatives on their boards:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Crofters Commission

  Hannah Research Institute

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Parole Board for Scotland

  Rowett Research Institute

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board*

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee*

  Scottish Screen

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council*

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the others voluntarily.

  (d) The following bodies operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Crofters Commission

  Deer Commission for Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland*

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Library of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  Scottish Community Education Council*

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage*

  Scottish Qualifications Authority

  147

  Scottish Screen

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the others voluntarily.

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

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [69969]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The General Teaching Council for Scotland voluntarily admits members of the public to all board or committee meetings.

  (b) The following bodies hold public meetings:

  Extra Parliamentary Panel

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  All do so voluntarily except for Extra Parliamentary Panel which is subject to a statutory requirement.

  (c) The following bodies have lay or consumer representatives on their boards:

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  Building Standards Advisory Committee

  Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Health Appointments Advisory Committee

  Justices of the Peace Advisory Committees

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse

  Scottish Childcare Board

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People

  All do so voluntarily except the General Teaching Council for Scotland which is subject to a statutory requirement.

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

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69941]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The following bodies publish the minutes of meetings:

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments*

  Extra Parliamentary Panel*

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland

  Scottish Advisory Committee on the Medical Workforce*

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  148

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the others voluntarily.

  (b) The following bodies publish the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings:

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishment*

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Scottish Advisory Committee on the Medical Workforce*

  Those marked * do so under a statutory requirement; the others voluntarily.

  (c) The following bodies publish a register of members' interests:

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  Scottish Childcare Board

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee

  Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People

  All do so voluntarily and not under a statutory requirement.

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

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will allow representatives of the Scottish National Party, Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party access to view, on a confidential basis, papers relating to spending by his Department already allocated and contracts signed by his Department for the period after 1 July for spending within the control of the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [69920]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]The allocation of all of the resources which will, after 1 July 1999, be under the control of the Scottish Parliament is set out in the booklet 'Scotland's Supply Estimates 1999–2000, which was laid before the House on 4 February. There is no central record kept within the Department of the wide range of contracts and similar arrangements entered into throughout the year by the Scottish Office, its agencies and associated Departments.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [70779]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 570.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the selection criteria and priorities of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme against which projects are selected. [70713]
  149
  Mr. Macdonald
  Guidance notes for applicants, which are widely available, provide information on selection criteria and priorities of the scheme. Copies of the guidance notes have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

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

  Hunting
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Forestry Commission met Mr. Roger Harris to discuss hunting; and what action is to be taken as a result of this meeting. [70926]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Some of the Forestry Commissioners met Dr. Harris on 29 January to discuss the Joint Universities Study on deer hunting. The Commissioners will formally consider the findings of the study once it has been published and subjected to peer review.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1999 under the subsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [71433]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office is offering a total of 50 places under the subsidised job option of the New Deal programme.

  City Status
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements his Department proposes to make in order to select candidates to propose for City Status. [71430]

  Mr. McLeish
  Awards of city status are made by Her Majesty The Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative, on the advice of the Government of the day. Her Majesty has expressed the intention of making awards in 2000 and 2002. Towns which have indicated an interest in city status will be contacted in May and invited to submit a formal application.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [71282]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Elements of the expenditure on a wide range of services within my right hon. Friend's budget, including social work, health, housing, education and transport, are of benefit to disabled people. It is not possible to identify these separately.

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

  Colleges (European Funding)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much of the funding allocated to colleges under European funding schemes is currently outstanding; [71362]
  150
  (2) how many bids by Scottish colleges for European funding have been successful; and what has been the average length of time between the initial approval of the scheme and the receipt by the college of the first and the final payments. [71363]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information requested could not be identified except at disproportionate cost. Further Education colleges in Scotland secure from the European Social Fund assistance amounting to over £20 million per year for over 400 projects per year. Payments are made as soon as possible following the receipt of valid claims.

  The administration of the European Structural Funds in Scotland will, from 1 July 1999, be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Prisoners (Employment)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average daily number of prisoners employed and the percentage of prisoners involved in vocational training by(a) quarter and (b) month in 1998. [71646]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is not available at this time in the detail sought, as figures for prisoners in employment are collated centrally for the full period required by the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts, that is, from April to March each year. The numbers involved in vocational training are collected separately. Provisional figures for the number of prisoners engaged in vocational training for 1998 are as follows.

  Month

  Average daily number of prisoners

  January

  292

  February

  289

  March

  297

  April

  281

  May

  286

  June

  310

  July

  316

  August

  109

  September

  310

  October

  316

  November

  322

  December

  273

  The Scottish Prison Service is developing a computerised management information system for regime activity to support continuous improvement in prisoner programmes and other opportunities, and data collection.

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

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total spending on education for Scotland across all categories of education expenditure for each year from 1994–95 to 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices. [71776]
  151
  Mrs. Liddell:
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash terms

  1998–99 Prices

  1994–95

  3,485

  3,894

  1995–96

  3,534

  3,837

  1996–97

  3,590

  3,781

  1997–98

  3,596

  3,695

  1998–99

  3,758

  3,758

  1999–2000

  4,036

  3,938

  2000–01

  4,351

  4,141

  Local authority education spending

  £000

  Councils

  1996–97 Final outturn in cash terms

  1996–97 Final outturn at 1998–99 prices

  1997–98 Provisional outturn in cash terms

  1997–98 Provisional outturn at 1998–99 prices

  1998–99 Budget estimates

  Aberdeen, City

  87,162

  91,798

  86,437

  88,814

  88,210

  Aberdeenshire

  109,686

  115,520

  112,025

  115,106

  111,739

  Angus

  48,012

  50,566

  48,192

  49,517

  49,866

  Argyll and Bute

  49,507

  52,140

  47,188

  48,486

  49,095

  Clackmannanshire

  24,084

  25,365

  24,458

  25,131

  25,198

  Dumfries and Galloway

  67,532

  71,124

  69,214

  71,117

  70,643

  Dundee

  70,320

  74,060

  69,074

  70,974

  69,168

  East Ayrshire

  59,089

  62,232

  58,104

  59,702

  60,657

  East Dunbartonshire

  53,343

  56,180

  51,531

  52,948

  53,922

  East Lothian

  37,557

  39,555

  36,970

  37,987

  37,881

  East Renfrewshire

  42,645

  44,913

  41,980

  43,134

  44,144

  Edinburgh, City

  159,099

  167,561

  159,859

  164,255

  164,035

  Eilean Siar

  23,591

  24,846

  23,523

  24,170

  24,604

  Falkirk

  62,762

  66,100

  61,704

  63,401

  64,222

  Fife

  167,748

  176,670

  164,946

  169,482

  167,128

  Glasgow City

  290,555

  306,009

  273,361

  280,878

  288,201

  Highland

  114,011

  120,075

  113,125

  116,236

  115,812

  Inverclyde

  42,823

  45,101

  42,884

  44,063

  45,504

  Midlothian

  40,623

  42,784

  40,721

  41,841

  41,236

  Moray

  41,888

  44,116

  39,903

  41,000

  41,716

  North Ayrshire

  65,239

  68,709

  67,212

  69,060

  68,906

  North Lanarkshire

  161,135

  169,705

  159,380

  163,763

  165,241

  Orkney

  15,372

  16,190

  14,980

  15,392

  15,358

  Perth and Kinross

  56,188

  59,176

  56,677

  58,236

  58,795

  Renfrewshire

  82,644

  87,040

  82,199

  84,459

  84,651

  Scottish Boarders

  48,314

  50,884

  46,928

  48,219

  47,702

  Shetland

  23,886

  25,156

  23,384

  24,027

  23,821

  South Ayrshire

  52,534

  55,328

  50,656

  52,049

  47,151

  South Lanarkshire

  145,592

  153,336

  143,589

  147,538

  140,775

  Stirling

  40,639

  42,800

  36,802

  37,814

  39,536

  West Dunbartonshire

  49,655

  52,296

  50,439

  51,826

  53,287

  West Lothian

  83,209

  87,635

  77,700

  79,837

  79,355

  Scotland

  2,416,444

  2,544,698

  2,375,145

  2,440,461

  2,437,559

  Notes:

  1. All figures are net current expenditure excluding loan and leasing charges as returned by the individual local authorities to the Scottish Office, adjusted, where necessary, to 1998–99 prices using the GDP deflator.

  2. The provisional outturn figures for 1998–99 and the budget estimates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the spending on housing in Scotland as a whole for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices; [71777]
  152
  As from July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the spending on education in each of the current local government areas and for Scotland as a whole for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices. [71775]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The available information is given in the following table. 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.

  (2) if he will estimate the total spending on housing for Scotland across all categories of housing expenditure for each year from 1994–95 to 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices. [71778]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The table shows outturn and planned housing expenditure from the Scottish Office budget for
  153
  the years 1994–95 to 2000–01. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Housing programme

  £ million

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1998–99 prices)

  Outturn

  1994–95

  533

  595

  1995–96

  499

  542

  1996–97

  484

  510

  1997–98

  470

  483

  Plans

  1998–99

  488

  488

  1999–2000

  512

  500

  2000–01

  622

  592

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure by the 5 New Town Development Corporations (which were dissolved by 31 March 1997) is excluded.

  2. The figures exclude non-HRA resources which were included in the single non-housing capital allocation from 1996–97.

  3. The figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 exclude additional allocations to local authorities of £109 million and £57 million respectively for the purchase of New Towns' stock.

  4. The figure for 1997–98 excludes additional grant of £46 million for Scottish Homes redemption of debt.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the spending on health for Scotland as a whole for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices; [71779]

  (2) if he will estimate the total spending on health for Scotland across all categories of health expenditure for each year from 1994–95 to 2000–01 in (i) current and (ii) constant 1998–99 prices. [71780]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Current prices

  Constant 1998–99 prices

  1994–951

  3,948

  4,411

  1995–961

  4,092

  4,442

  1996–971

  4,237

  4,462

  1997–981

  4,354

  4,474

  1998–992

  4,642

  4,642

  1999–20003

  4,924

  4,804

  2000–013

  5,214

  4,963

  1Outturn

  2Estimated outturn

  3Plan

  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 when the extra funding for the Rough Sleepers Initiative announced on 16 December 1998 will be spent. [70318]
  154
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 16 February 1999)The intention is that the additional funding announced for the Rough Sleepers Initiative on 16 December 1998 should be spent in the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02.

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

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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). [71102]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Local authorities have been allocated £1.1 billion for social work services in Scotland in 1999–2000. Although not ring-fenced, at least £5.1 million is for carers and respite care. Also £5 million of the total has been specifically allocated to encourage local authorities to implement the Community Care Action Plan, a key theme of which is support for carers. Information on the numbers of carers is not held centrally. It is for each authority to determine how much of its total resources to allocate to assisting carers.

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

  Fixed Penalties
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in(a) Scotland and (b) each individual sheriffdom last year were charged with (i) one to three, (ii) four to five, (iii) five to 10 and (iv) more than 10 fixed penalty offences. [71874]

  Mr. McLeish
  Procurators Fiscal are empowered to make a conditional offer of a fixed penalty (fiscal fine) in relation to any offence in respect of which an alleged offender could competently be tried before the district court. The police or the Procurator Fiscal may also make a conditional offer of a fixed penalty in respect of certain road traffic offences.

  Information collected since 1996 indicates that 92 per cent. of fiscal fines accepted involved one fine, 7 per cent. involved 2 fines, 1 per cent. involved 3 fines and 0.4 per cent. 4–8 fines.

  From 1 July, Procurator Fiscal conditional offers (fiscal fines) will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Police and Procurator Fiscal fixed penalties for road traffic offences will be reserved.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's report to him on the Second Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in how many local authorities(a) detailed counter-proposals were lodged against the Commission's draft proposals, by (i) political parties, (ii) individuals and (iii) community groups; (b) the Commission agreed to hold a local hearing; and (c) the Commission's draft proposals were amended subject to local hearings. [71890]
  155
  Mr. McLeish
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland advises me that its records are not held in a form from which this information could be quickly extracted. I am asking the Commission to write to the hon. Member, and shall arrange for a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's report to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Second Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, how many local authorities' amendments to the draft proposals of the Commission were incorporated in the Commission's final recommendations to the Secretary of State. [71885]

  Mr. McLeish
  In the case of every authority, amendments to the draft proposals of the Commission were incorporated in the Commission's final recommendations to the Secretary of State. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Solicitors (Payments)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Legal Aid Board about the number of solicitors who will continue to register for criminal legal aid work in Caithness following the introduction of fixed fees for summary criminal legal aid cases. [71861]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Legal Aid Board have made no representations. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Rowett Institute
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he received information from Dr. Pusztai in respect of work he had been undertaking at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen involving experiments with rats and genetically modified potatoes; and if he will place a copy of it in the Library. [72570]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A copy of the report produced by Dr. Pusztai in response to the report of the Audit Committee was received by the Scottish Office on 26 October 1998. A copy of the report, together with the Audit Committee's response to the report, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

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

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the papers relating to Dr. Pusztai's research released by the Rowett Research Institute. [72362]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A copy of the Audit Committee Report and the Press Release issued by the Rowett Research Institute; Dr. Pusztai's Report in response to the Audit Committee; and the Audit Committee's response to that report and the accompanying Press Release, have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  156
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require the instruction to say nothing, given to Dr. Pusztai by his superiors at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, to be lifted forthwith. [72576]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have been asked to reply as responsibility for this subject lies with the Scottish Office.

  The restriction was lifted by the Director of the Rowett Research Institute on 16 February 1999.

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

  Housing
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish the Green Paper on housing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [71994]

  Mr. Dewar
  I am publishing the Green Paper "Investing in Modernisation—An Agenda for Scotland's Housing" today, and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government's firm belief is that every household should be able to live in a decent, secure and affordable home, and the Green Paper sets out a range of ideas and proposals for achieving this objective. We have already made substantial progress towards this goal, for example, by providing an additional £300 million of investment for housing; by developing new programmes through the Warm Deal, Empty Homes, and Rough Sleepers initiatives; by establishing New Housing Partnerships to lever in private finance; and by putting community regeneration and tenant empowerment at the centre of our strategy. The publication of "Investing in Modernisation"—the first Scottish Housing Green Paper in twenty years—is further evidence of the importance which this Government attach to improving housing in Scotland.

  The Green Paper seeks views on a wide-range of issues and proposals, some forty in all. It emphasises the need for a long-term strategy which recognises the links with health, employment, and environmental policies and the role that housing can play in promoting social inclusion. It addresses all housing tenures, and places particular emphasis on the housing needs of the most vulnerable members of our society—rough sleepers and the homeless, community care users and families in cold and damp homes. "Investing in Modernisation" sets out the Government's ideas for revitalising public housing through the promotion of community ownership, which offers the prospect of fundamental and radical change which should bring major benefits to tenants, local authorities and communities. The Green Paper also highlights the importance of local authorities developing a strategic role in respect of housing in their areas, and it assesses the current activities of Scottish Homes and seeks views on how these might best be carried out in future.

  "Investing in Modernisation" is a consultative document which is intended to stimulate debate and discussion about the long-term housing policies and strategies which are most relevant to Scotland's

  157
  distinctive needs and circumstances. The closing date for responses to the Green Paper is 31 May 1999. Responses will be made available to the Scottish Parliament and Executive, who will have responsibility for determining, after 1 July, whether these proposals should be taken forward.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the annual cost of abolishing the tolls on the Skye Bridge and paying a shadow toll to Skye Bridge Ltd. for the remaining years of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [69246]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]The terms of the contract with the concessionaire are that any changes to the concession agreement must have the consent of the concessionaire. Accordingly, it is not possible to estimate the final cost of shadow tolling. However, as my right hon. Friend said in his written answer of 4 July 1997,Official Report, columns 288–90, the idea of removing tolls completely through 100 per cent. shadow tolls is not less expensive than buying out the contract nor in public expenditure terms does it have the effect of spreading the cost over a number of years, as people have tended to assume. The full cost of the project would be a public expenditure charge immediately because of the absence of the transfer of risk to the private sector, which is what justifies the phased public expenditure cost for DBFO roads contracts entered into before construction has begun. The cost of buying out the contract is estimated to be at least £25m, but the final figure would depend upon the outcome of negotiations with the concessionaire. Hence, full shadow tolling is not considered an affordable option given the other competing pressures upon the roads budget.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [71288]

  Mr. Bayley
  Expenditure on those people with a long term illness or disability is estimated to be £24.8 billion in 1998–99. This represents approximately 25 per cent. of total Social Security expenditure.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total savings to the social security budget, for the past five years, resulting from maintenance paid to families through the Child Support Agency. [71099]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  158

  A breakdown of total savings to the Social Security budget from maintenance paid through the Child Support Agency

  £ million

  Year

  Benefit savings

  1993–94

  418

  1994–95

  479

  1995–96

  493

  1996–97

  469

  1997–98

  464

  1998–991

  314

  Total

  2,637

  >1up to 31 December 1998

  Note:

  The figures include maintenance, collected or arranged which directly offsets benefit expenditure, together with estimated savings where a claim for Income Support ceases as a result of action by the Agency.

  Transfer of Functions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on plans for the division of responsibilities between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security with respect to(a) answering parliamentary questions and (b) appearances before Select Committees following the implementation of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Bill [Lords]. [71124]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, announced to the House on 8 February 1999,Official Report, columns 35–45, that Treasury Ministers would take on responsibility for policy on National Insurance on 1 April 1999. The Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc. Bill currently before Parliament transfers operational responsibility for National Insurance contributions, Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Maternity pay and contracting out matters, together with control and management of the National Insurance Fund, to the Board of the Inland Revenue. It also transfers responsibility for policy on National Insurance contributions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Treasury Ministers.

  Policy responsibility for Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Maternity Pay, contracting out, credits, Home Responsibilities Protection and the security of the National Insurance Number system remains with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He will also continue to be responsible for benefits. Ministers and, where appropriate, officials will be accountable to Parliament on the areas for which they are responsible. Treasury Ministers will answer questions relating to the Inland Revenue including those responsibilities transferred to it by the Bill. It is for the House to decide on the areas of responsibility for Select Committees.

  Guaranteed Minimum Pension
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional annual cost of the introduction of the guaranteed minimum pension. [71373]
  159
  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated additional cost from April 1999 to 2002 (the period covered by the comprehensive spending review settlement) of providing a minimum income guarantee for pensioners

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  20001–02

  Cost of introducing the minimum income guarantee

  495

  670

  840

  Note:

  The costs include the effect on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit arising from increasing the rates in line with Income Support, and the additional numbers qualifying for full HB as a result of becoming entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional annual cost of increasing the state retirement pension to the same level as the guaranteed minimum pension. [71374]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer my right hon. Friend, the then Minister of State for Social Security, gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 18 November 1998,Official Report, columns 624–25.

  Asylum Seekers (Fraud)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to investigate the level of social security fraud committed by asylum seekers. [71096]

  Mr. Timms
  Our estimates of fraud levels do not identify asylum seekers as a distinct group. However, we investigate fraud wherever it is alleged to occur, regardless of the category of the claimant involved.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where an employee takes out a stakeholder pension through the access given by his employer and then changes job, what arrangements will ensure continued access to the same stakeholder pension. [71174]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" indicated that the requirement on employers to provide access to stakeholder pension schemes, including the deduction of contributions from pay, would initially apply only to a single scheme nominated by the employer. An employee who moved to a new employer with a different nominated scheme and who wished to remain in his or her current scheme would be able to do so, but would need to make his or her own arrangements for passing contributions to the scheme, unless the new employer agreed to pass on contributions on a voluntary basis.

  We believe it would be desirable in the longer term to move to a position where employers would be required to pass employees' contributions to any stakeholder scheme. Before doing so, we would want to ensure that such a requirement did not impose an undue administrative burden on employers. The Green Paper indicates that we plan to consult further on the idea of a clearing house for contributions, which could be helpful in reducing the cost to employers of passing contributions to a number of different schemes.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-married pensioners with income below £80 per week are(a) men and (b) women who are (i) 65 to 69, (ii) 70 to 74, (iii) 75 to 79 and (iv) 80 years or above; and if he will list separately the figures in each case for those who are (1) widows/widowers, (2) divorced or separated and (3) never married. [71176]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Non-married pensioners in Great Britain with income below £80 per week, by status—All non-married (non-cohabiting) pensioners

  Age band

  Men

  Women

  Total

  65 to 69

  30,000

  100,000

  130,000

  70 to 74

  20,000

  180,000

  200,000

  75 to 79

  40,000

  190,000

  220,000

  80 or above

  60,000

  270,000

  330,000

  All 65 or above

  150,000

  730,000

  880,000

  Widow/widower pensioners

  Age band

  Men

  Women

  Total

  65 to 69

  10,000

  70,000

  80,000

  70 to 74

  10,000

  140,000

  150,000

  75 to 79

  30,000

  160,000

  190,000

  80 or above

  50,000

  230,000

  290,000

  All 65 or above

  100,000

  600,000

  710,000

  Divorced or separated pensioners

  Age band

  Men

  Women

  Total

  65 to 69

  10,000

  20,000

  30,000

  70 to 74

  10,000

  20,000

  20,000

  75 to 79

  1—

  10,000

  20,000

  80 or above

  1—

  10,000

  10,000

  All 65 or above

  20,000

  60,000

  80,000

  Never-married pensioners

  Age band

  Men

  Women

  Total

  65 to 69

  10,000

  10,000

  20,000

  70 to 74

  1—

  20,000

  20,000

  75 to 79

  10,000

  20,000

  20,000

  80 or above

  10,000

  20,000

  30,000

  All 65 or above

  20,000

  70,000

  90,000

  1Estimates of fewer than 5,000 pensioners

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are given to the nearest 10,000 pensioners, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  2. Estimates, particularly those for 'divorced or separated', 'never married' and male widowed pensioners, should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes.

  3. Income is defined as net income before housing costs at July 1996 prices.

  4. Non-married pensioners who are currently cohabiting are excluded from the analysis.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey, 1996–97

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate from the PENSIM simulation the numbers of pensioners eligible for the minimum
  161
  income guarantee (a) under current arrangements and (b) if the Government's proposals on pensions are implemented in (i) 2000, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2030 and (v) 2040. [72192]

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

  Proportion of pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee

  2000

  2025

  2050

  Current arrangements

  1 in 5

  1 in 5

  1 in 3

  After implementation of proposals (excluding effect of behavioural change)

  1 in 5

  1 in 5

  1 in 4

  Notes:

  1. The estimates of the numbers in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee under current arrangements are based on our intention, over the long-term and as resources permit, to uprate the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with average earnings.

  2. Projections forward to the year 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. The estimates have been made by extrapolating estimates from the PENSIM model, but these can only give a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 1999,Official Report, columns 222–23, on income support, what assessment he has made of the gender breakdown of the one in four pensioners whom he expects to be on income support in 2050. [71437]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available. Projections forward to 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. Estimates have been made by extrapolating estimates from the PENSIM model, but these can only give a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effects of his over-indexation of income support rates for pensioners on the number of pensioners receiving(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit in 1999–2000. [71957]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that, as a result of increasing the Income Support rates for pensioners above price indexation in April 1999, an additional 5,000 pensioners will become entitled to Housing Benefit and an additional 10,000 cases will become entitled to Council Tax Benefit.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on the 1995–6 Family Resources Survey and have been adjusted by administrative data. Figures are uprated to 1999–2000 prices and benefit levels and rounded to the nearest 5,000 cases.

  2. Pensioners are defined as pensioner benefit units at and above State pension age, (at least one of SPA or above), rather than individual Pensioners.

  3. The two figures do not sum. Pensioners entitled to Housing Benefit will also be entitled to Council Tax Benefit, but not all Council Tax Benefit recipients will be receiving Housing Benefit.

  Widows
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the rights of women who are widowed(a) before and (b) after pension age in respect of their late husband's state second pension. [71177]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend that men and women widowed over State pension age will be able to inherit half the State second pension entitlement of their late spouse (subject to the overall maximum). In line with the proposals for bereavement benefits currently before Parliament, those with dependent children who are widowed before State pension age will also be able to inherit half their late spouse's State second pension entitlement as part of their Widowed Parent's Allowance. Those without dependent children will be able to inherit half their late spouse's State second pension entitlement when they reach State pension age (again subject to the overall maximum).

  LISA
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the current charging levels of unit trusts, with respect to the feasibility of incorporating lifetime individual savings accounts within the stakeholder pension framework. [71173]

  Mr. Timms
  The consultation paper "Helping to deliver stakeholder pensions" indicates that the proposed new investment mechanism could be used for all existing types of defined contribution pension scheme and, in due course, for stakeholder pension schemes.

  Pooled investment schemes, including unit trusts, typically take most of their income from an annual percentage charge on the funds under management and should therefore be well placed to deliver flexible arrangements with charges that do not penalise individuals who stop paying in, or who wish to transfer their pension savings to another scheme. Details of the minimum standards that all stakeholder pension schemes will be required to meet, including those on charges, will be set out in due course.

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the types of benefit received by those leaving the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds to transfer to other benefits. [71186]

  Angela Eagle
  Of the 82,600 young people who have left the New Deal up to November 1998 (the latest date for which figures are available) 10,150, 12 per cent. of all leavers, have claimed other benefits. Of these, 5,600 have claimed Incapacity Benefit, 1,700 have claimed Income Support and 2,850 have claimed other benefits for which no detailed breakdown by benefit is available.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many extra staff have been recruited to compensate for the delays in the NIRS2 project; how many of these staff are(a) short-term and (b) part-time

  163
  workers; what has been the cost of employing these staff including employment on-costs; and how much of this cost is recoverable from Anderson Consulting. [71788]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 556.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for which customers and from what dates the Contributions Agency has declined to accept national insurance contributions because of an inability to record those contributions; how many customers are affected; how much revenue has been lost; and how it will be recovered. [71784]

  Mr. Timms
  The Contributions Agency has never declined to accept National Insurance contributions from its customers or contributors because of an inability to record the contributions paid on the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2).

  However, there have been some situations where the Department has been unable to register an individual to pay Class 2 self-employed contributions either by the Direct Debit or quarterly payment method as a consequence of the delays in introducing the NIRS2 on-line facilities.

  The Department identified approximately 160,000 customers who were affected by the delays and provided them with information. Contingency arrangements were invoked where appropriate to minimise the impacts to customers.

  Since the introduction of the on-line facility, the Agency has cleared approximately 31,000 cases from the 160,000 outstanding backlog cases. It is also continuing to action all new applications as they are received.

  Collections of all outstanding Class 2 liabilities affected by the delays will be handled sensitively.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the objectives of the NIRS2 project; when the final decision was taken to implement the project; on what dates revisions of the objectives were approved; what has been the expenditure on this project to date; and if he will list the remaining implementation milestones to completion. [71770]

  Mr. Timms
  The objectives of the NIRS2 project were to develop a new computer system that would replace the ageing NIRS1 system and to support the legislative changes brought about by the Pensions Act 1995.

  The original NIRS2 Agreement was to deliver the system in 3 releases between February 1997 and April 1999. A subsequent Deed of Agreement was agreed in July 1996, which allowed for a phased delivery of the first release. Although incorporating the original time frame, the phasing of delivery between those dates was significantly altered.
  Release 1a
  The agreement delivery date of 10 February 1997 was achieved.
  Release 1b
  The original agreement date of 27 October 1997 was not achieved. Delivery took place on the 28 January 1998.
  164
  Release 1c
  The original agreement date of 6 April 1998 was not achieved. Part of the service was delivered on the 13 July 1998, and final acceptance took place on the 28 August 1998.

  Release 2–3 is the remaining milestone. The agreed delivery date is the 6 April 1999, and this is still the current target. A maintenance release incorporating changes requested by the business is also planned for 6 April 1999.

  As reported by the National Audit Office on 29 May 1997 the cost of implementing the NIRS2 computer system is likely to be around £134 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies have been commissioned under the Housing Benefit Computing Strategy Study; when such studies were commissioned; what agencies are employed in the study; how much expenditure has been committed so far; and what are the implementation milestones to completion. [71786]

  Angela Eagle
  The Housing Benefit Computing Strategy (HBCS) study was announced on 5 March 1996 to explore the benefits of integrating local authority Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) computer systems with the next generation of departmental computer systems. A range of studies were commissioned in 1996. They included a national survey of local authorities (to establish details of their existing systems and their attitude towards a national computing system); an HB/CTB process mapping exercise (to baseline the business requirements of an integrated system) and a financial analysis (to model the costs and benefits for the department and local authorities of such a system).

  Further analytical work has been undertaken during the course of 1997 and 1998. At present, only the Department is involved in continuing work, but local authority Housing Benefit practitioners and a number of consultancy firms have been involved in the past. Excluding civil service and local authority costs, expenditure of approximately £640,000 has been committed so far. The study into whether Departmental computer systems should take account of HB/CTB is continuing. Integration of local authority and Departmental computer systems is a major undertaking and progress is dependent on the implementation of the Department's overall information systems/information technology strategy. Final decisions on the outcome of the HBCS study and any future implementation plans will be dependent on this.

  Smartcard
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the objectives of the benefits payments smartcard project; on what date the final decision was taken to implement the project; what has been the expenditure on the project so far; and if he will list the remaining implementation milestones to completion. [71764]
  165
  Mr. Timms
  The Benefits Agency is involved, with Post Office Counters Ltd., in a Programme to automate post offices and benefit payments. The objectives of this Programme are:

  To deliver a secure method of paying benefits at post offices;

  To develop a system that meets recognised accountancy practices;

  For automation to provide greater commercial opportunities enabling Post Office Counters Ltd. to improve competitiveness and increase efficiency;

  To provide an improved level of service to all customers.

  The project is being taken forward under the Private Finance Initiative and the contract was awarded to ICL Pathway on 15 May 1996.

  To date, the Department's expenditure amounts to £241 million. This expenditure provides a range of services and an Information Technology infrastructure that will also support our wider programme of modernisation.

  The Programme is presently undergoing a limited trial in the North East and South West of England using the Benefit Payment Service to pay Child Benefit and the Order Book Control Service to record bar coded order books. The remaining milestones consist of the completion of post office automation nationally, the introduction of card payment for all other benefits and the delivery of the remaining services; the Electronic Point of Sale Service which records post office product sales; and the Automated Payment Service that provides automated bill payment facilities.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he requires customers receiving child benefit to distinguish between children of different relationships. [71709]

  Angela Eagle
  Generally, a person who is responsible for a child either because the child is living with them, or because they are contributing regularly towards the maintenance of the child, will be eligible for Child Benefit. The relationship between the child and the person claiming is immaterial.

  Where competing claims are received in respect of the same child and both claimants live at the same address, a parent will have priority of title over a person who is not the child's parent. Step-parents and legally adoptive parents are treated as natural parents.

  Accord Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the objectives of(a) the accord project and (b) the assist computerisation project; on what date the final decision was taken to implement the project;

  Review

  Cost

  Reports

  Review of the major components of the Social Security system

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs.

  Green paper; "New Ambitions for Our Country: A new contract for welfare", published 26 March 1998. Decisions on support for disabled people, bereavement benefits and a single work-focused gateway to the benefits system for working age people will be taken forward in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Further announcements in due course.

  166
  what was the expenditure on each project; and if he will list the remaining implementation milestones to completion. [71781]

  Mr. Timms
  The Access to Corporate Data (ACCORD) Procurement project was established to provide the Department with long term supply options to take forward the delivery of the new generation of Information Systems/Information Technology (IS/IT) needed to underpin the modernisation of the Welfare State. The procurement set out to establish Private Finance Initiative/Private Public Partnership arrangements with suitable service providers.

  The announcement of the selected service providers (AFFINITY, ARCWAY and 1ACCORD) to take this work forward on behalf of the Department was made on 5 November 1998, Official Report, column 646. Specific business allocations will be made to the service providers under the provision of an overarching IS/IT Services Agreement. Milestones for these individual projects will then be defined as part of the projects management activity.

  The ACCORD Procurement Project team has, since its inception in 1996, cost in the order of £3.8 million. No payments have yet been made to any service provider as a result of the procurement project. Expenditure commitments will be linked to the business allocations made under the IS/IT Services Agreement.

  The ASSIST (Analytical Services Statistical Information System) Project was established to produce a comprehensive statistical package to support statisticians and policy makers within the Department, with final approval for the implementation of the system given on 9 February 1998. The final milestone will be the roll out of the Data Repository to users in the Departments Analytical Services Division from 5 April 1999. Total expenditure from April 1995 to the end of the financial year 1998–99 is expected to be £6.2 million.

  Benefits Agency Offices (Closure)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he first assessed the advantages of closing the Benefits Agency offices in Abingdon and Wantage. [71688]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 18 November 1998,Official Report, column 629.

  Reviews and Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71512]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  167

  Review

  Cost

  Reports

  Review of Pensions

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs.

  "Stakeholder Pensions: a Consultation Document" November 1997.

  "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions" December 1998.

  "Strengthening the Pensions framework: a Consultation Document" December 1998.

  Review of Child Support

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs.

  Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" published July 1998.

  We will shortly publish our detailed strategy for safeguarding Social Security.

  Review of the evidence on which the Department's approach to the assessment of noise induced sensorineural hearing loss is based

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs but travel and subsistence for members was £2,100.

  Outcome of the review was announced on 5 March 1998.

  Housing Benefit Simplification and Improvement Project

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs.

  Report will be published in due course.

  Task Forces

  Pensions Education Working Group

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs.

  "Getting to know about Pensions"—June 1998

  Pension Provision Group

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs

  "We all need pensions—the prospects for pension provision"—June 1998

  Advisory Groups

  Disability Benefits Forum

  Costs are subsumed within the Department's ordinary running costs but travel and subsistence, hospitality and other miscellaneous services amount to £6,580 to date

  None

  Ad hoc Group of External Stakeholders—Decision Making and Appeals

  Nil

  No reports produced. It is a discussion group for consultation on regulations from Social Security Act 1998 and DMA implementation proposals.

  Pension Sharing Consultation Panel

  Nil

  None

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending entitlement to invalid care allowance to those above state pension age. [71498]

  Mr. Bayley
  Extending eligibility for Invalid Care Allowance to people initially claiming aged 65 years or over would cost an estimated £30 million in terms of benefit expenditure in 1999–2000, including the cost of increased eligibility for carer premium within the income related benefits.Note:
  The expenditure estimate has been given at 1998–99 prices and is rounded to the nearest £5 million.
  Source:
  1996–97 Family Resources Survey. Due to limitations in the survey data the estimate should be treated with caution.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71855]
  168
  Mr. Timms
  In common with other Departments, the work of press officers in this Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  As this is a routine part of a Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  "A New Contract for Welfare"
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list changes made to the proposals in the Green Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Support in Bereavement and Support for Disabled People", as a result of the consultations he undertook. [72187]

  Mr. Bayley
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Back-to-work Bonuses
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Back-to-Work bonuses have been paid in each year since the introduction of the scheme. [72186]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  169

  Number of back to work bonuses made

  Number

  7 October-31 December 1996

  1,374

  January-December 1997

  41,353

  January-December 1998

  45,542

  Note:

  Data based on information held on the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) and the Jobseeker's Allowance Payment System (JSAPS). No clerically processed claims included. Excludes JSAPS activity for November 1996.

  Source:

  Back to Work Bonus management information statistics.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of individuals who will lose entitlement under his changes to incapacity benefit and the numbers who, as a result, will claim means-tested assistance. [72191]

  Mr. Bayley
  Most of the people who would be affected by the proposal to take some account of occupational and personal pensions over £50 a week will continue to receive Incapacity Benefit. The estimated reduction in the number of people on Incapacity Benefit as a result of the proposed change to the National Insurance contribution conditions is 30,000 in year one, 60,000 in year three and 120,000 in year ten. Approximately 70 per cent. of these people will already be receiving income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support when their claim for Incapacity Benefit is made and we would expect their entitlement to means-tested benefit to continue.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the change in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit(a) in the six pilot areas of the New Deal for Disabled People and (b) in control areas. [72356]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are piloting a Personal Adviser Service under the New Deal for Disabled People in 12 areas. The first six pilots were launched on 28 September, and pilots in the remaining six areas are expected to start in the Spring. The latest available information about Incapacity Benefit caseloads in the pilot areas relates to August 1998, before the pilots started. Data are collected quarterly, and information for the quarter ending November 1998 will be available at the end of March.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many widows currently receive incapacity benefit on the basis of their husband's contributions; what is the total cost of the payments; and what is the average payment received; [72354]

  (2) how many widows and widowers he estimates will not be able to claim incapacity benefit on the basis of their spouses' contributions as result of the changes proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. [72353]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows. It is estimated there may be up to 2,000 successful claims a year to Incapacity Benefit on the basis of a late spouse's contributions. We estimate that about 1,500 people will be affected in the first year and 5,000 in the long run by the proposed changes to the contribution conditions.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed housing benefit and council tax benefit extension period for each year since the introduction of the concession. [72189]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Housing benefit/council tax benefit extended payments

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  1996–97

  Total extended payment applications

  110,000

  100,000

  Number of successful applications

  87,000

  85,000

  Percentage of successful applications

  82

  83

  1997–98 Provisional

  Total extended payment applications

  170,000

  170,000

  Number of successful applications

  150,000

  140,000

  Percentage of successful applications

  85

  85

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to two significant figures.

  2. Figures refer to a benefit unit, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. 1997–98 figures are provisional. Final figures will be released in HB/CTB Quarterly Summary.

  4. Statistics—May 1998, on 25 February 1999.

  Source:

  Quarterly Administrative returns April 1996 to March 1998.

  SERPS
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of men with SERPS entitlement who retired between 1986 and 1996. [72044]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that there are approximately 2 million male pensioners in Great Britain, who are aged between 68 and 78 and who have some entitlement to additional pension from SERPS.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Strategy Computer System (PSCS) drawn at January 1999.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the men with SERPS entitlements who retired between 1986 and 1996 he estimates may have made financial arrangements on the basis of the incomplete information included in DSS leaflets NP45 and NP46 published between 1986 and spring 1996. [72045]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that there are approximately 2 million male pensioners in Great Britain who retired between 1986 and 1996 and who have some SERPS entitlement. They will have made their financial arrangements on the basis of various sources of information.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to write to all the men with SERPS entitlements who retired between 1986 and 1996 whose decisions may have been affected by the incomplete information provided in DSS leaflets NP45 and NP46 between 1986 and spring 1996; and if he will compensate all those who have been affected. [72046]
  171
  Mr. Timms
  We are considering ways to heighten general awareness of the reduction from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the amount of SERPS which can be inherited by a surviving spouse from 6 April 2000. Current widows and those widowed before 6 April 2000 will not be affected by this change. Existing compensation arrangements can offer redress to those who can show that their financial decisions have been affected to their detriment by misleading information provided by the Department.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72012]

  Date

  Service provided

  Value (£)

  7–31 May 1996

  Consultancy support for ITSA's Management Team review of lessons learnt from recent PFI and
  out sourcing exercises

  24,462

  12–30 August 1996

  Review of Financial Systems that form part of the Accounting Requirement for Shared System
  Infrastructure—part of the emerging corporate IS/IT strategy

  17,010

  5 August 1996–22 November 1996

  Consultant to undertake pre-feasibility study of Programme Accounting Group (PAG) computer
  systems capabilities for debt management

  81,400

  12 November 1996–31 December 1996

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG) systems development work on the Accounting Systems

  364,500

  21 October 1996–24 January 1997

  Programme Accounting Group (PAG) Consultancy for Third Party Payment Purchasing study

  118,471.70

  5–26 February 1997

  Independent review of Departmental Year 2000 Project

  17,745

  10 February 1997–4 April 1997

  IS/IT Systems Support for Programme Accounting Groups (PAG) Computer System

  33,250

  9 June 1997–3 October 1997

  Consultant to review/assess and analyse opportunities within ITSA's Customer Service
  Function

  53,025

  14 July 1997–31 January 1998

  Program Accounting Group (PAG) Project Manager for Benefits Agency Financial System
  enhancements

  63,000

  16 March 1998–30 September 1998

  Assisting Banking and Allocation Branch in the evaluation of ACCORD Proposals

  386,815

  13 October 1997–12 October 1998

  Assisting Banking and Allocation Branch in defining the requirement for MIS, Financial
  control and accounting for the ACCORD project and Modern Service Programme

  437,400

  25 November 1997–31 March 1999

  Assisting Banking Allocation Branch to further develop MIS and Financial Strand of Modern
  Service Programme work

  399,600

  Total

  1,996,678.70

  Annuities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate on the basis of the figures provided by the Government Actuary the weekly income which could be purchased via an indexed annuity by(a) a man and (b) a woman, aged 65 years with an accumulated sum of £10,000 from a stakeholder pension if that annuity was intended to last (i) for a fixed period of 10 years and (ii) until death. [72182]

  Mr. Timms
  £10,000 would provide an annuity income of £730 per annum for a man and £630 per annum for a woman. Both of these are payable for life. The Inland Revenue's rules do not permit a retirement annuity to be payable for a fixed period of ten years.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the final figures of
  172
  Angela Eagle
  All of the business awarded to KPMG has been competitively tendered amongst a selection of suppliers, under the Computer and Related Services Framework Agreement, which has been in place since 1 June 1996. No records are available prior to this date.

  This Framework is covered by the provisions of the EC Services Directive (92/50/EEC), which came into effect on 1 July 1993. This ensures that all tender exercises are compliant with EC Procurement legislation.

  This Department spends in the order of £60 million per annum under the Computer and Related Services Framework Agreement on consultancy and contractor services, under 2 per cent. of which has been spent with KPMG during the whole period of the Framework. All contracts of over £10k are listed in the table, three other minor contracts below this value have been awarded.

  cases under the Benefit Integrity Project following its conclusion on 31 March. [72355]

  Mr. Bayley
  Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) statistics for the period ending 31 March 1999 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses by the end of April 1999. BIP cases being actioned on 31 March 1999 will continue to be processed. Statistical information will continue to be provided as these cases pass through all stages of adjudication, including review and appeal.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 378, on stakeholder pensioners, if he will provide corresponding estimates of income as a percentage of the minimum income guarantee for (i) 10 years and (ii) 15 years after retirement. [72183]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  173

  Pension as a proportion of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG)

  Number of years after retirement

  Earnings-indexed MIG%

  Price-indexed MIG%

  0

  110

  240

  10

  90

  200

  15

  80

  175

  Notes:

  1. The hypothetical individual in this example is assumed to begin work at 16 years old in 2002; work for 49 years until retirement; and earn £10,000 per annum in 1998 earnings terms throughout their working life.

  2. Only National Insurance rebates are paid into the stakeholder pension scheme.

  3. Real earnings growth is assumed to be 1.5 per cent.

  4. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data sources are available to him which would enable him to assess long-term trends in the living standard of widows over pension age relative to other groups of people over pension age. [71958]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on incomes of widows over pension age and other groups of people over pension age is available from the Family Expenditure Survey for selected years between 1979 and 1996–97. Such information is also available from the Family Resources Survey from 1994–95 to 1996–97. Reliable estimates may not be available from these sources for all years, or for certain subgroups of people over pension age, due to small sample sizes.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 379, on pensions, if he will provide a breakdown of the total package between (i) the minimum income guarantee, (ii) winter fuel payments, (iii) free eye tests and (iv) concessionary travel, and indicate in each case how the expenditure is phased over the three year period. [72040]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated DSS expenditure based on comprehensive spending review forecasts

  £ million

  Year

  Mimimum Income Year Guarantee1

  Winter Fuel Payments

  1999–2001

  495

  155

  2000–01

  670

  160

  2001–02

  840

  165

  1This includes additional cost for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  In addition, costs in the region of between £120 million and £150 million per annum (depending on take up) will be incurred by the Department of Health in respect of free eye tests for people aged 60 and over. the introduction of a national minimum scheme for pensioners on buses depends on the passage of primary legislation.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates it would cost to extend the payment of bereavement allowance from six months to(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years. [72282]
  174
  Angela Eagle
  The following is the information:

  Additional cost of extending bereavement allowance

  £ million

  2001

  2005

  2020

  One year

  10

  30

  50

  Two years

  10

  90

  150

  Three years

  10

  140

  200

  Four years

  10

  180

  250

  Five years

  10

  200

  350

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 1998–99 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million. Figures for year 2020–21 are rounded to the nearest £50 million. The estimates for 2020–21 are broad orders of magnitude and are provided for illustrative purposes only.

  2. Estimates are presented net of means-tested benefit offsets, in line with those in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. They assume a constant offset ratio for each year.

  Source:

  Gross costs were provided by the Government Actuary's Department

  Vouchers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will release the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee concerning luncheon vouchers and other vouchers. [72281]

  Mr. Timms
  We are considering the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on regulations to bring non-cash vouchers into line with the treatment of cash earnings for National Insurance contribution purposes. Where the Committee reports on a set of regulations, the Secretary of State is required to publish it, and the Government's response, when tabling the regulations. There is no requirement to publish the Committee's report where a decision is taken not to table the regulations. We shall make a further statement shortly.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the latest available year the value of benefits paid by his Department to claimants in the(a) Liverpool and (b) Wirral areas. [72185]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables. Where a benefit is paid centrally its value cannot be broken down to local figures, unless it is paid with a locally administered benefit such as Income Support.

  The value of benefit claims for the Financial Year 1997–98, period ending March 1998, for Liverpool and Wirral areas

  Benefits

  Liverpool

  Wirral

  Attendance Allowance1

  41,436,945

  11,854,879

  Community Care Grants

  3,321,647

  833,135

  Disability Living Allowance1

  25,840,578

  6,324,555

  Funeral Payments

  94,884

  22,665

  Incapacity Benefit

  210,017,961

  66,275,699

  Income Support

  380,229,248

  106,703,915

  Industrial Death Benefit

  868,650

  533,175

  Industrial Injuries Benefit

  11,543,984

  8,578,417

  Job Seekers Allowance

  105,322,360

  29,589,854

  Maternity Allowance

  278,828

  115,242

  175

  The value of benefit claims for the Financial Year
  1997–98, period ending March 1998, for Liverpool and Wirral areas

  Benefits

  Liverpool

  Wirral

  Maternity Expenses

  484,029

  140,829

  Retirement Pension1

  382,241,952

  140,576,855

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  22,899,682

  7,067,890

  Widows Benefit

  13,987,575

  4,675,006

  Winter Fuel Payments

  3,051,760

  1,002,410

  Xmas Bonus

  1,737,431

  608,596

  Other2

  43,961

  23,244

  Total

  1,203,401,475

  384,926,366

  1The benefits marked are centrally paid benefits and the full value of
  these benefits paid in Liverpool and Wirral is not shown. The amounts shown are only the value of
  the benefit where it is combined with a locally paid benefit such as Income Support.

  2The "other" figure consists of the remaining benefits whose value
  individually are small.

  Notes:

  1. Other centrally administered benefits that could not be shown in the table are: War Pensions, Family Credit, Child Benefit, Earnings Top-Up, Disabled Working Allowance, and Invalid Care Allowance.

  2. Liverpool consists of Knowsley, Liverpool Mersey, Liverpool North and Sefton Districts. The BA local offices which make up these districts are: Liverpool Huyton, Liverpool Kirkby, Liverpool Belle Vale, Liverpool Edgehill, Liverpool Garston, Liverpool Toxteth, Liverpool Breckfield, Liverpool West Derby, Liverpool Bootle, Liverpool Crosby and Southport.

  3. Wirral is one BA district with Birkenhead and Wallasey local offices.

  4. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Source:

  Programme Accounting Computer System of the BA based at Norcross.

  The amount of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit subsidy paid out by the Department for 1997–98

  Benefits

  Liverpool

  Wirral

  Housing Benefit Subsidy

  137,797,161

  39,894,852

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy

  80,723,071

  19,439,489

  Total

  218,520,232

  59,334,341

  Notes:

  1. Local Authorities included above are Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral.

  2. The amounts for Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit represent the subsidies paid to Local Authorities by the Department as opposed to the actual amount of benefit paid to claimants by the Local Authorities.

  3. Figures may be subject to change at audit.

  Source:

  The Local Authorities initial final claims for 1997–98.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many United Kingdom civilians employed in war-related work have received war pensions for asbestosis since 1969; and what factors led to their award. [72000]

  Mr. Bayley
  As at 31 December 1998, there were 3,183 civilians receiving a War Disablement Pension. However, information on how many of these pensions relate to asbestosis, how many pensions have been awarded since 1969 and what factors led to their award is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Second Pension
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional annual cost of the second pension in(a) 10, (b) 15, (c) 20 and (d) 25 years' time. [71372]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The estimated gross public expenditure costs of the state second pension

  £ billion 1998–99 prices

  Year

  SERPS

  SSP

  Difference, net of Income Related Benefit effects

  2010

  9.4

  9.0

  -0.4

  2015

  11.0

  10.7

  -0.4

  2020

  12.0

  11.9

  -0.3

  2025

  13.2

  13.8

  0.0

  Notes:

  1. This shows the net public expenditure effects of the difference between the costs of SERPS and Second State Pension (SSP), taking into account the effects of income related benefits.

  2. The SSP figures include all expenditure on State second-tier pensions, including SERPS pensions already in payment and pre-2002–03 SERPS accruals yet to come into payment.

  3. These figures exclude the effect of the introduction of stakeholder pensions, which is expected to lead to higher levels of contracting out.

WALES

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make additional funds available to the ambulance service and the fire service in Wales, above their normal revenue budgets, to meet the one-off costs associated with the millennium celebrations. [70308]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No additional funding is being made available to the ambulance or fire service in respect of the millennium celebrations.

  Following the transfer of functions, this matter will be a responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Aricept
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which area health authorities in Wales fund the prescription of the drug Donepezil Hydrochloride (Aricept) to treat Alzheimer's disease. [71486]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Generally, Health Authorities do not set aside funding for specific drugs, whether these are prescribed by GPs or by hospital doctors.

  On 29 May 1998 the Chief Medical Officer circulated to clinicians and pharmacists in Wales the advice of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee that treatment with Donepezil should be initiated and supervised only by a specialist experienced in the management of dementia, that the benefit should be assessed at 12 weeks, and that treatment should continue only for those patients who have benefited from its use.

  There is, therefore, no Departmental prohibition on the use of Donepezil in Wales but Health Authorities have to consider its use in the light of their locally determined priorities. The Dyfed Powys Health Authority has set up

  177
  a formal referral system and Iechyd Morgannwg Health have decided to treat patients within the protocol of a randomised control trial. The Gwent, North Wales and Bro Taf Health Authorities are reconsidering their position and are expected shortly to propose formal arrangements for the use of Donepezil in their areas.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reviews, task forces and advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71517]

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

  Underground Spoil (Grovesend)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the potential implications for(a) public health and (b) traffic on the M4 of the burning of underground spoil at Grovesend. [71295]

  Mr. Hain
  Responsibility for the health of the population of the area around Grovesend lies primarily with Morgannwg Health Authority. I understand that both the Health Authority and Swansea County Council have been monitoring and assessing the implications of underground burning of the tip at Grovesend.

  The traffic position has been discussed with the police and local authorities in the area and resources have been made available to establish extra road signs, which will be erected shortly. A diversionary route has also been discussed and proposals for signing this have been put to

  Managers directly employed by the NHS in Wales1

  September 1996

  30 September 1997

  30 September 1998

  Staff group/grade

  Number

  Wte

  Number

  Wte

  Number

  Wte

  Ambulance Staff.

  Manager2

  69

  69

  92

  92

  89

  89

  Administration and estate staff.

  Senior manager

  459

  423

  488

  451

  518

  486

  Manager

  802

  780

  823

  801

  834

  814

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  Manager

  268

  263

  259

  258

  264

  259

  Scientific, therapeutic and technical staff.

  Manager

  124

  121

  137

  135

  136

  132

  Total of above

  1,722

  1,656

  1,799

  1,737

  1,841

  1,780

  1It should be noted that data may underestimate the true position as some non-medical staff (1.5 per cent. in 1995, 0.3 per cent. in 1997 and 0.2 per cent. in 1998) did not have a valid occupation code and have not, therefore, been assigned centrally to a staff group or grade.

  2Some staff in this group were erroneously included with administrative and estates staff during 1996.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Princess of Wales Hospital
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors are employed at the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend; and how many were employed there in May 1997. [71169]
  178
  the affected local authorities. It is considered that implications on traffic will diminish through the summer months but even with a start on works to address the problem in the near future, it will be some time before the position is substantially improved.

  This is clearly a very serious problem. While others have primary responsibility for dealing with it, Welsh Office officials are working with the various interested parties to try to resolve the problem and I have called for regular reports on progress.

  Nurses
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole time equivalent nurses were employed in Wales on 31 January. [71155]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on NHS staff is currently collected centrally on a quarterly basis. At 30 September 1998, the latest date for which information is available, there were 23,691 whole-time equivalent staff directly employed by the NHS in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff group.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of managers in the NHS in Wales in each of the last five years. [71165]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on a comparable basis is available only for the last three years and is given in the following table. Prior to this the term "manager" was only applied to persons in the administrative and clerical grades. The whole-time equivalent number of managers in this group was 1,292 in 1994 and 1,350 in 1995.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on hospital doctors is collected by the NHS Trust as at 30 September each year. At 30 September 1997, the latest date for which information is available, there were 180 hospital doctors employed in the Bridgend and District NHS Trust which related to a whole-time equivalent of 157.5.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost to date of tackling the meningitis outbreak in the Bro Taf Health Authority area. [72258]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Details of the costs incurred by Bro Taf Health Authority during the recent outbreak are not held centrally. No additional funding has been sought from the Welsh Office and no additional costs have been incurred by my Department.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of advertising information relating to the meningitis outbreak to the public in Wales during the recent outbreak. [72253]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department has incurred no additional expenditure: all publicity material available has been produced as part of the Department's on-going meningitis awareness campaign.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last had discussions with the National Meningitis Trust. [72260]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office officials have had discussions with the National Meningitis Trust and that organisation has been invited to nominate a representative to join the group that I have set up to examine meningitis in Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra resources have been provided to the Bro Taf Health Authority to meet the cost of the meningitis outbreak. [72259]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No additional funding has been sought by, or provided to, Bro Taf Health Authority. Each Health Authority receives an element of discretionary funding in their annual resource allocation which is for the Health Authority to spend according to their priorities in their area.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last had discussions with the Meningitis Research Foundation. [72261]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office officials have had discussions with the Meningitis Research Foundation and that organisation has been asked to nominate a representative to join the group that I have set up to examine meningitis in Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken to educate people in South Wales about meningitis. [72257]
  180
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  A bilingual leaflet entitled "Knowing About Meningitis and Septicaemia", containing advice on recognising the signs and symptoms of meningitis, is widely available. This information is also included in the "The Guide to Childhood Immunisation" given to all new mothers.

  There is also a successful yearly campaign "Look out for your mate" in universities and colleges.

  Helplines and advice are made available to local people by Health Authorities when an outbreak occurs.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Ford Motor Company
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the meetings he has had with representatives of the Ford Motor Company since he became Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement. [72256]

  Mr. Michael
  I have met representatives of the Ford Motor Company on two occasions:

  23 November 1998 at the Welsh Office in London.

  25 January on a visit to the Ford factory at Bridgend with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Trade Unions (Meetings)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the meetings he has had with trade unions over the last six weeks in his official capacity. [72255]

  Mr. Michael
  Over the last six weeks I have met representatives of trade unions on two occasions:5 January
  Trade union side at Bronglais Hospital. During the course of this visit I also met members of the management of Ceredigion NHS Trust, Dyfed Powys Health Authority, and various other representatives.
  17 February
  UNISON about Sully Hospital.

  I make it a matter of course to meet trade unions during the industrial visits I undertake, for instance Ford at Bridgend, and BAE and Raytheon at Broughton.

  Over the same period, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has also had two meetings with representatives of trade unions:

  1 February

  Unions at Lucas SE1;

  11 February

  NUT.

  National Assembly (Opening Ceremony)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of the opening ceremony of the National Assembly for Wales. [72251]
  181
  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 683.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71859]

  Mr. Michael
  Rebuttals of allegations in the media are made in my Department by individual press officers either through telephone calls to the organisation concerned, or through an appropriate letter signed by an official or a Minister. Generally, it is found that reporting of Welsh matters in the regional and national media is of a response nature, and the need for rebuttals is infrequent. For that reason, there is no special unit in the Department to handle rebuttals, and no record is kept centrally of the number or cost of rebuttals.

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on teacher morale. [72033]

  Mr. Hain
  Teaching is a demanding and vitally important profession. Our White Paper "Building Excellent Schools Together" (Cm 3701) acknowledged, however, that teachers' professionalism had been disdained all too often over the last decade; that morale had been badly damaged; and that this had to stop.

  We have recently published our Green Paper "The Best for Teaching and Learning In Wales" on the future of the teaching profession in Wales. The Green Paper offers fundamental reform and the opportunity to give teachers the recognition and support they deserve. In return for a newly enhanced professionalism, greater individual accountability, more flexibility and still higher standards, its proposals set out measures that would offer teachers higher status, better prospects, a more rewarding career structure, less bureaucracy and more freedom to teach. We are undertaking a widespread consultation with all interested parties on these proposals

  We have also undertaken to establish a General Teaching Council for Wales to maintain high professional standards in Wales and promote a positive image of teaching both within the teaching profession and to those outside.

  Following the transfer of functions, these issues will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on class sizes in infant schools. [72030]
  182
  Mr. Hain
  The January 1998 annual Schools' Census showed the following percentages of pupils in Wales were educated in classes of 30 or less:

  Year group

  Usual age of pupils

  Percentage

  Reception

  5

  74.3

  Year 1

  6

  66.4

  Year 2

  7

  62.5

  Other key stage 1 classes of mixed year groups

  —

  74.9

  At January 1998, there were 30,734 pupils in Key Stage 1 classes of over 30 pupils.

  In 1998–1999, £3.7 million in infant class size reduction grant has been allocated to local education authorities across Wales. It is estimated that more than 270 additional teachers have been taken on using this grant, with more than 700 classes being brought down to 30 pupils or less. This means that there are now 23,500 more Welsh infants in classes of less than 30 than there would have been without the grant. The 1999 Schools' Census will give the actual position.

  In 1999–2000, £11.3 million will be available to local education authorities to continue funding existing measures and to make further progress in tackling the remainder of the problem. Local education authorities have submitted bids for 1999–2000 infant class size reduction grant and successful bids will be announced by end March. Eligible expenditure in the 1999–2000 round includes teachers' salaries, minor refurbishment works and the capital costs of new build classrooms and demountable classrooms.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate(a) how many and (b) what percentage of nursery age children are in nursery education in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [72027]

  Mr. Hain
  In line with the Government's commitment to nursery education, a free, at least part-time education place has been available under local early years development plans from September 1998 to all four year olds whose parents want this, from the term following the fourth birthday. Local early years development partnerships can decide to secure and fund places in the maintained or non-maintained sector, provided they work within an agreed quality assurance framework.

  There were 25,590 children in maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools, as at January 1998. This is 35 per cent. of 3 and 4 year olds.

  In addition, there were 29,346 children under 5 years old who attended ordinary or special classes in maintained schools. This represents a further 40 per cent. of 3 and 4 year olds.

  Non-maintained settings also provide nursery education places for three and four year olds which are funded under local early years development plans. Information on the

  183
  number of such places is not yet available centrally but should be in late Spring when draft plans for school year 1999–2000 are submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact upon Wales of the Social Exclusion Unit. [72029]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 612.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employers are involved in the New Deal for the (i) young unemployed and (ii) long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [72031]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest statistics produced by the Department for Education and Employment indicate that up to the end of December 1998, over 2,900 employers in Wales had signed up to provide subsidised jobs for the New Deal for 18–24 year olds or for the New Deal for the 25 plus.

  I am very encouraged by these figures. From the outset we made it quite clear that the involvement of employers was crucial to the success of the New Deal in Wales. We have made an excellent start and I look forward to this continuing.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Date-based Export Scheme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers about(a) their views on and (b) the willingness of their members to participate in, the date-based export scheme; and if he will make a statement. [70867]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers on 12 January and I met them today. Officials have had a number of meetings with them about the Date-Based Export Scheme and the Federation wrote on 22 January responding to the consultation on our proposals for operating the scheme.

  The Federation has expressed reservations about the attractiveness of the scheme to potential exporters. They see the requirement for plants to be dedicated to the slaughter of export eligible animals as a major drawback and have advised that their members are unwilling to commit to this requirement. They suggest that it will not be possible for the industry to export profitably under the scheme as it is currently planned to operate.

  Nevertheless, the Federation recognises the importance of setting a date from which the UK is allowed to resume exports. I agree with them that the scheme rules are difficult and we expect the uptake to be low initially. But
  184
  given the current climate of concern about BSE in other Member States, I believe then we could not have negotiated a more liberal scheme.

  Covent Garden
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to dispose of the fruit, flower and vegetable market at New Covent Garden. [70888]

  Mr. Rooker
  We intend to dispose of the assets of the Covent Garden Market Authority as soon as parliamentary time can be found for the necessary legislation.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the meat hygiene costs borne by the livestock industry in England and Wales in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; [70944]

  (2) if he will list the meat hygiene (a) charges to and (b) costs borne by the (i) UK and (ii) EU member states' livestock industries which result from EU regulations; [70920]

  (3) which meat hygiene costs in other member states of the EU are borne by (a) public authorities and (b) the relevant livestock industry; and in cases where costs are shared, if he will indicate the proportions paid. [70922]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended) on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls requires Member States to recover the costs of those hygiene inspections conducted at licensed fresh meat plants in accordance with harmonised EC meat hygiene rules. The Directive sets standard charges (in ECU) applicable in all Member States for hygiene inspections of red meat, poultry meat and game meat, with rates varying depending on the species and size of animals being slaughtered. Subject to meeting specified criteria, such as the efficiency of operations at individual plants, the Directive provides for the standard charge to be abated by up to 55 per cent. Conversely, where the actual cost of inspection exceeds the standard charge, the Directive provides for actual costs to be charged. Similar principles apply in respect of charges in licensed cutting plants.

  The total cost to the meat industry of hygiene inspections carried out in Great Britain by the Meat Hygiene Service in 1996–97 was £26.0 million and in 1997–98 was £29.8 million.

  The actual level of hygiene inspection charges levied on individual meat plants in other Member States is set by the appropriate competent authority within the framework laid down by Directive 85/73/EEC. I am currently seeking information about the level of such charges, including the extent to which hygiene inspection costs are borne by public authorities. Once I have received this information I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning methods of enforcement of meat hygiene regulations in other EU states as compared to enforcement in the United Kingdom and the impact of any differences on the competitiveness of UK products; and if he will make a statement. [71158]
  185
  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for ensuring that individual EU member States comply with their Community public health obligations, including the enforcement of the EU meat hygiene Directive. The FVO carries out a regular programme of inspection visits to all Member States and publishes the reports of such visits on the Commission's website on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24health/vi/reports). A list of the relevant reports also appears each month in MAFF's Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report and BSE Enforcement Bulletin.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost to producers if the charges for Meat and Hygiene Service inspections are passed on to them. [68726]

  Mr. Rooker
  Meat Hygiene Service charges are levied on the occupiers of licensed fresh meat premises. It is a commercial decision for such operators whether they pass these costs onto their suppliers.

  The total cost to the meat industry of meat inspection and hygiene supervision carried out in Great Britain by the Meat Hygiene Service was £29.8 million for 1997–98 and is forecast to be £33.1 million for 1998–99. Certain MHS enforcement costs, such as those for Specified Risk Material controls, were met by Government.

  The MHS budget for 1999–2000 is currently being prepared. However, after careful consideration, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 14 January that the Government can no longer defer the introduction of charges to industry to cover the costs of SRM controls. It is proposed that these costs, estimated to be £21.5 million, should be transferred from the taxpayer to industry from 29 March 1999. We are currently considering the results of the consultation exercise on this matter.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been done by(a) his Department and (b) consultants to his Department into the possible effects of genetically modified crops or plants on (i) how insects pollinate and (ii) the quality of soil. [72527]

  Mr. Rooker
  All of the work within MAFF's research programme to assess the risks to the agricultural environment from the release of genetically modified crops is carried out by researchers under contract to the Ministry; none of the work is done in-house by the Ministry.

  The Ministry has commissioned no research to date on possible effects of genetically modified crops on how insects pollinate, or on the quality of the soil.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if crops grown in genetically modified food trials will be allowed to enter the food chain. [71413]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Foods or food ingredients produced from GM crops may enter the food chain provided they have first passed a rigorous safety assessment and have been approved and labelled in accordance with the EC Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation.

  Food Standards (Schools)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many schools his Department estimates will be subject to the levy to fund the Food Standards Agency. [72238]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is proposed that the levy be applied to certain food premises required to register with the local authority under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. Schools as such will not be required to pay. The requirement to pay the levy would depend on whether the premises concerned were required to register. Details of the number of registered food premises located in schools are not collected centrally and could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many schools are currently registered under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. [72236]

  Mr. Rooker
  Registers of food premises under these regulations are prepared and maintained by individual local authorities. Details of the number of food premises located in schools that are required to register are not collected centrally and could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce cross-compliance measures which would prevent agricultural subsidies and other public money going to landowners who block public rights of way. [70889]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission's proposals on CAP reform would provide for Member States to apply cross-compliance measures to protect the environment. Access provisions could not be applied under this provision.

  We will consider cross-compliance measures further in light of the terms of the eventual Agenda 2000 agreement and the responses to the current consultation exercise.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [70776]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 569–70.

  Countryside
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land held by his Department he estimates would fall within the definition of open country as set out in the consultation document "Access to the Open Countryside" of February
  1998. [71639]
  187
  Mr. Morley
  It is estimated that of the 4,000 or so hectares of agricultural land held by my Department—approximately 1,150 hectares (28%)—would come within the definition of open country. This is part of a research farm in Northumberland which is partly freehold and partly leasehold and has been let to ADAS Consulting Ltd. for moorland research.

  Organic Cereal Production
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants the Home Grown Cereals Authority has made for research into organic cereal production. [71534]

  Mr. Rooker
  To date the Authority has funded no research projects directed specifically at organic cereal production. The Authority is, however, currently in the process of revising its cereals R&D strategy. As part of this process, it has held formal discussions with a number of organisations representing the interests of organic producers.

  Pork Products
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about a possible ban on the sale of pork products whose methods of production are illegal in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [71525]

  Mr. Rooker
  I and my Ministerial colleagues have received a large number of representations calling for a ban on the import of pork and pork products which do not match British production standards. It remains the case, however, that Single Market Legislation and European Court of Justice Rulings protect the free circulation of goods in the EU. In areas where there is a common market, such as pigmeat, if products conform to EU requirements, individual member states cannot introduce a unilateral ban.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1999,Official Report, columns 160–61, 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, [71025]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1999, Official Report, columns 160–61, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department; [71024]

  (3) 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
  188
  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. [70978]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The information asked for is not all held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member when it has been gathered together.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effects of the decline of the euro against sterling on the green pound. [70617]

  Mr. Rooker
  As from 1 January 1999, "green" rates ceased to exist, because the agrimonetary system, which converts amounts under the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy into national currency, has been completely overhauled. Daily market exchange rates are now used to convert from euros into sterling.

  Overall, sterling has strengthened slightly against the euro since 1 January 1999, but it is too soon to predict long term trends. Compensation may be available if the sterling value of direct payments or market support payments is adversely affected by a decline in the euro.

  Synthetic Pyrethroid
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips on water courses. [71540]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) reported to Ministers on the use of synthetic pyrethroid and other non-OP sheep dips in January 1998. The Committee's recommendations, which included the extension of the Certificate of Competence Scheme to non-OP dips with effect from 31 December 1998, are being implemented. Applications for Marketing Authorisations for all veterinary medicinal products must satisfy the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety includes the safety of the environment. Environmental pollution incidents involving sheep dips should be reported to the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Officials of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) liaise closely with the environment agencies and all suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicinal products, including those affecting the environment, should also be reported to the VMD.

  Beef Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the importation of hormone-treated beef from the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [71537]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations on the importation of hormone-treated beef from the United States of America. In each case we
  189
  have provided the assurance that, in line with the European Union (EU) ban on the use of hormone growth promoters in food producing animals, any third country which permits the use of these substances is required to guarantee that no animal, and no meat coming from animals, to which they have been administered will be exported to the EU. Exports for the EU market must be certified accordingly and Commission inspectors verify compliance with all the requirements.

  Farm Land
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farm land in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland have been bought in each of the last five years for which figures are available with funds released by roll-over relief. [71161]

  Mr. Rooker
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The data collected on agricultural land transactions do not identify the source of funding for land purchased. The estimated total area of agricultural land sold over the last five years for which figures are available are as follows:

  Hectare

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1993

  146,032

  30,639

  16,811

  4,721

  1994

  163,021

  27,149

  13,836

  4,605

  1995

  156,785

  17,202

  10,735

  4,050

  1996

  214,386

  22,506

  17,232

  3,425

  1997

  200,695

  33,795

  12,824

  2,912

  In Great Britain sales of less than 5 hectares are excluded, and in Northern Ireland sales of less than 2 hectares are excluded. In Scotland the series excludes sales of whole estates and inter-family sales. For England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is a delay between the date of sale and the inclusion in the analysis whereas for Scotland the analysis is based on the date of sale and is subject to retrospective revision.

  Groundwater
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the EU Groundwater Directive and the cost of its implementation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [71528]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received a number of representations which refer to this Directive. As the Groundwater Directive is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment, they have been passed to his Department for an answer.

  Tobacco Subsidy
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the tobacco subsidy to EU growers cost in the last year for which figures are 190
  available; and when he expects the subsidy to be discussed next in the Council of Ministers. [70405]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998, the EU spent 868 million ecu (£583 million1) on subsidies under the EU tobacco regime.

  In November last year the Commission issued a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation 2075/92 and fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 harvests. This is likely to be discussed at the Agriculture Council soon, but no date has been specified.
  1Using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.4887 ecu.

  Sniffer Dogs (Quarantine)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the quarantine regulations will apply on their return to the sniffer dogs sent from the United Kingdom to assist in the search for survivors of the recent earthquake in Colombia. [71504]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Yes, the two dogs in question returned to the United Kingdom on 4 February and are currently undergoing six months quarantine.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current statistical risk of dying from new variant CJD as a result of the consumption of beef on the bone(a) using 1999 data together with the SEAC published 1997 risk analysis formula and (b) provided to him by his Department. [70089]

  Mr. Rooker
  It has still not been established that nvCJD is caused by exposure to BSE infectivity in food, but the Government, based on expert scientific advice, have always proceeded on the assumption that it could be. There continues to be great uncertainty about the nature of new variant CJD and about how susceptible people may be to infection. It is, therefore, not possible to estimate the current statistical risk of dying from the disease as a result of consuming beef or beef products which had been cooked on the bone.

  In its 1997 advice, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) quoted an estimate of a 1 in 20 chance of one case of nvCJD arising as a consequence of exposure to infectivity in dorsal root ganglia in 1998.

  In November 1998, SEAC concluded that it was still not known how many people had become infected with nvCJD as a result of exposure to the BSE agent, nor how much BSE infectivity is needed to cause disease. Consequently predictions as to public health risks are very uncertain and SEAC did not quote specific levels of risk. However, the Committee was of the opinion that, in view of the continued decline in the BSE epidemic, the number of infected cows entering the human food chain would be less in November 1998 than in 1997.

  On this basis, the Committee concluded that any risk from dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow in 1999 is less than it was 12 months previously. The pattern of experimental results obtained with bone marrow led the

  191
  Committee to conclude that the risk, if any, from that tissue is likely to be very small. With the Over Thirty Month Scheme in place, the Committee thought it likely that the risk from dorsal root ganglia is also very small and negligible in comparison to the possible risk earlier in the epidemic. Due to the uncertainty, neither SEAC nor Departmental officials has sought to quantify the risks numerically.

  The decision to retain the controls on the sale, use and disposal of beef bones was made for the reasons explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 4 February 1999, Official Report, columns 1077–82.

  Quality Standard Marks (Pigmeat)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual budget for the Meat and Livestock Commission's new quality standard mark for pigmeat; and if he will make a statement on how the success of the scheme will be measured. [71036]

  Mr. Rooker
  The funding of the British Quality Standard for Pigmeat and its measures of success are matters for the industry through the Meat and Livestock Commission's Pig Strategy Council.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the(a) timescale and (b) budget for extending the new Meat and Livestock Commission quality standard mark on pigmeat to other meat products. [70923]

  Mr. Rooker
  The British Quality Standard for Pigmeat was developed by the pigmeat industry itself through the Meat and Livestock Commissions Pig Strategy Council. The possible development of quality standard marks for lamb and beef are matters for the respective strategy councils for those products. The budget is to be set-aside for technical and promotional work of this nature is a matter for the MLC in consultation with the industry. Poultry meat is outside the remit of MLC.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) plans he has for and (b) representations he has received on the incorporation of existing farm assurance schemes into the new Meat and Livestock Commission quality standard mark for pig meat. [70924]

  Mr. Rooker
  None; the British Quality Standard for Pigmeat and the various farm assurance and quality schemes in the pigmeat sector are all industry run and industry funded operations. The relationship between them is therefore a matter for the industry itself.

  Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many food premises are exempt from the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 by reason of not being open for more than four days in any consecutive period of five weeks. [71365]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rotherham Euro Experiment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of the involvement of (i) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Baroness Simons and (ii) the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in the Rotherham Euro Experiment; if(a) ministerial transport and (b) departmental equipment were available to them over the period of their involvement; and what reports have been made by them subsequently. [70789]

  Ms Quin
  The Rotherham Euro Ready Week was organised by the local Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise Council, the Rotherham Advertiser, and other local public and private sector bodies. It was welcomed by HMG as making a significant contribution to the Government's campaign to raise awareness of the introduction of the Euro.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended in her Ministerial capacity in support of HMG's public information campaign. She travelled by rail to Doncaster, her ticket paid for from public funds. The organisers kindly provided a car to take her from Doncaster to Rotherham. She had her usual departmental equipment with her.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was present in his constituency capacity. This Department did not provide him with transport or equipment.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [70773]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 570.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [71283]

  Mr. Fatchett
  So far in 1998–99, £37,523.58 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget can be attributed to spending on people with disabilities. This represents 0.0036 per cent. of the total FCO departmental spending.

  However, this does not represent a complete picture since spending on people with disabilities has, to date, been subsumed into a number of the FCO's general budgets. In addition, there is the general spend on items such as building repairs/improvements which benefits all staff, but which takes particular account of the needs of people with disabilities.
  193
  During the new financial year 1999–2000, budgets will have a sum allocated specifically for people with disabilities. This will enable us to form a more accurate picture of spending on people with disabilities.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [71269]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In the United Kingdom the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for the provision of Consular and Legalisation services to the public. We already ensure that where a customer has difficulty in accessing these services, by reason of a disability, alternative arrangements are made to ensure that person can access those services.

  Consular Division of the FCO, which has responsibility for delivering these services, is to be relocated in 2000. A detailed disability access audit has already been carried out on the new site and the requirements of part III of the DDA have been fully incorporated into refurbishment plans.

  Whilst the provision of goods and services by British Diplomatic Missions overseas is not covered by this legislation, our staff overseas will do all they can to adhere to the spirit of the Act in the provision of, for example, Commercial, Passport and Consular services to British Citizens, as well as entry clearance services to Citizens of other countries.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [70972]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The following is the information:

  £

  Set-up costs (including VAT)

  Running costs (per annum)

  FCO website (http://www.fco.gov.uk)

  53,490

  35,000

  FCO Publications Online (http://informationfrombritain.com)

  85,767

  17,866

  Wilton Park Conference (http://www.wiltonpark.org.uk)

  10,780

  506.04

  Planet Britain (http://www.planet-britain.org)

  1—

  28,200

  British Council (http://www.britcoun.org)

  90,000

  72,000

  Commonwealth Institute (http://www.comonwealth.org.uk)

  2,000

  1,000

  GB-China Centre (http://www/gbcc.org.uk)

  2,250

  100

  Britain-Russia Centre (http://briteastwest.easynet.co.uk)

  none

  143

  194

  Set-up costs (including VAT)

  Running costs (per annum)

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe (http://ourwold.compuserve.com/homepages/BACEE/bacee.htm)

  none

  90

  1The Planet Britain website is an online version of a CD-ROM of the same name. Cable and Wireless provide free bandwidth and server space to host the site.

  i) The main FCO website covers British policy and the work of the FCO. Average monthly hits are 3.8 million.

  ii) The publications website is an online ordering catalogue for FCO publications. The site has registered 24,222 hits between its launch on 1 December 1998 to 5 February 1999.

  iii) The Wilton Park website gives details of Wilton Park conferences. It registers an average of 6,000 hits per month.

  iv) The Planet Britain website is aimed at a youth audience overseas and gives an overview of modern Britain (science, sport, culture, media etc.). It has registered 420,000 hits since May 1998 to date.

  v) The British Council website promotes the work of the Council worldwide and receives an average of 4 million hits per month.

  vi) The Commonwealth Institute website promotes the work of the Commonwealth in the UK and registers an average of 5–6,000 hits per month.

  vii) The Great Britain-China Centre website covers the work of that organisation and provides links to other related organisations. It receives approximately 1,600 hits per month.

  viii) The Britain-Russia Centre website covers the work of that organisation and receives approximately 250 hits per month.

  ix) The British Association for Central and Eastern Europe (BACEE) website covers the work of that organisation. It was launched on 25 January 1999 and user statistics are not yet available.

  Estimated running costs for these websites are expected to remain roughly the same over the next three years. The FCO Publications website hopes to recover some costs from the sale of publications and the Great Britain-China Centre website hopes to offset some costs by carrying advertising.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 721, 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. [71013]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Since May 1997 there has been no expenditure by task forces, review bodies or focus groups on public opinion research, television, radio and newspaper advertising, or direct mail. From centrally held funds there has been no expenditure on market research. £4,818,211 has been spent on publications and publicity commissioned through the Publications Section of the FCO's Information Department. This figure does not include publications for in-house communications purposes. It would involve disproportionate costs to establish what individual FCO posts may have spent on these activities from their devolved budgets.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 721,

  195
  if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71012]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]I am asking the Chief Executives of FCO Agencies and non-departmental public bodies to write directly to the hon. Member with information on expenditure on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising, and (c) direct mail since May 1997.

  The COI undertakes work for the FCO on a contractual basis competing with other providers. All expenditure incurred by the COI on work carried out on behalf of the FCO is included in my previous answer.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71507]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 May 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has established the following task forces, reviews and advisory groups:Review of the Criteria Used in Considering Licence Applications for the Export of Conventional Arms.

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced the new criteria on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. There were no additional direct costs to this review.
  Review of Policy Towards the Remaining UK Overseas Territories.

  The Government intend to publish a White Paper soon. The direct cost of this review is £4,342 to date.
  Panel 200 Advisory Group.

  Panel 2000 published a consultation Document on 10 September 1998 which was laid before Parliament on the same date. The direct cost of this group is £49,519 to date.

  The indirect office and staff costs of these reviews have been absorbed by the FCO.

  Spain
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the amount of European funding allocated to Spain in each year since accession. [71697]

  Ms Quin
  The EC budget is not broken down by Member State. But in its report "Financing of the European Union" COM (98) 560, deposited in the House Library on 26 October 1998 (Batch list 121), the Commission show at Table F Annex 8 the total EU 196
  expenditure in all Member States from 1992–97. The table shows that between those years Spain received the following from the EC budget:

  Mecu

  1992

  7,536.0

  1993

  8,215.0

  1994

  7,889.7

  1995

  10,898.4

  1996

  10,661.5

  1997

  11,303.6

  Information on Spain's receipts from accession to 1992 can be derived from the European Court of Auditors Annual Reports which provide a comprehensive breakdown of all EC expenditure.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of manpower and military assets Spain dedicates to the NATO alliance. [71696]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The forces that Spain makes available to NATO is a matter for the Spanish Government.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to take legal action regarding Spanish imposed delays at the Gibraltar frontier. [71701]

  Ms Quin
  In our discussion of Gibraltar with the Spanish Government, we have 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. We have also drawn the current situation at the Gibraltar/Spain border to the attention of the President of the European Commission; and look to the Commission to remind the Spanish authorities of their obligations. We want to see the outcome of those representations before considering further steps.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what cost burden Gibraltar has imposed upon HM Treasury in each of the last 10 years. [71700]

  Ms Quin
  The Government of Gibraltar budget is self-financing, and Gibraltar has received no technical aid, programme aid or budgetary support in the last ten years. Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office activities in Gibraltar are financed from departmental budgets while the Department for International Development deals with some Gibraltar-related pension matters.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his response to the Gibraltar House of Assembly's motion, of 17 December, calling on Her Majesty's Government to reject the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty; and on what date his response was made. [72212]
  197
  Ms Quin
  We are, of course, aware of the Gibraltar House of Assembly motion of 17 December. We were not asked for a formal response. The Chief Minister drew our attention to the motion in a letter of 18 December (received on 8 January). I responded to that letter on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 January.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. [72214]

  Ms Quin
  We support the right or principle of self-determination reflecting the wishes of the people concerned. It should be exercised in accordance with the other principles and rights in the UN Charter and with other Treaty obligations. In Gibraltar's case, that includes article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. This has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, columns 702–03, if he will list the agenda of the bilateral meeting with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Foreign Affairs and Defence; at whose request that meeting took place; for how long it lasted; which common foreign and security policy issues were resolved to be specific areas for further discussion; and if he will make a statement. [71355]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  On 12 January I held a short meeting with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs and defence. We agreed to recommend an extension of the Joint Consultative Committee's remit to cover a range of common foreign and security policy issues. The meeting took place by agreement as a result of the widening of co-operation announced by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in December.

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a list of the members of the cabinets of European Commissioners, with their pay scales. [71148]

  Ms Quin
  I have deposited in the Library a list of the members of the different cabinets in the Commission, together with a table of pay scales, as provided by the Commission's Personnel Directorate.

  European Budget
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to the reply of 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 542, if he will make a statement on the nature of the activities authorised under (i) 3706-other political activities and (ii) 3708-information work. [71143]

  Ms Quin
  A detailed breakdown of the activities authorised is not readily available. I will write to the right hon. Member in due course. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tibet
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government on its campaign to promote atheism in Tibet. [71163]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The situation in Tibet, including restrictions upon religious freedom, continues to be a matter of concern. We take every opportunity to raise Tibet with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact the current situation regarding human rights in China and Tibet will have on(a) bilateral aid to and (b) EU dialogue on human rights with the Chinese Government. [71162]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU/China human rights dialogue provides an opportunity for the EU to address many serious human rights concerns, including in Tibet, directly with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to support this dialogue with bilateral assistance, such as in the legal and judicial fields, which is a valuable way of bringing about concrete improvements on the ground in China.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71447]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]1,028 FCO press releases have been issued by the COI since the COI began distributing press releases on the FCO's behalf in 1995. Between 1990 and 1995 1,223 press releases were issued by the FCO direct. The year by year breakdown is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  263

  1991

  221

  1992

  182

  1993

  197

  1994

  180

  1995

  200

  1996

  207

  1997

  296

  1998

  325

  In respect of FCO Agencies and non-departmental public bodies I am asking the Chief Executives of those bodies to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [71462]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by Governments Departments are laid down in the Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service published by the Cabinet Office in
  199
  July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing of press releases is given in the Working Guide for Government Information Officers. Copies of both documents are in the libraries of the House.

  The primary means by which the FCO issues press releases is the News Distribution Service of the COI. Since May 1997 the COI has charged the FCO £44,067.39 for this service. No records are kept for subsidiary costs, such as faxing and postage of press releases direct by the FCO to any applicants.

  In respect of FCO Agencies and non-departmental public bodies, I am asking the Chief Executives of those bodies to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent events in Zimbabwe. [71820]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We 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. President Mugabe's recent statements raise serious questions about his Government's commitment to the rule of law and basic human freedoms. We have reminded the Zimbabwe Government of their obligation to uphold international human rights standards, and to act to repair the damage to the country's reputation.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has held with(a) Zimbabwean officials and (b) human rights groups in relation to the torture of journalists by the army in Zimbabwe. [71819]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We summoned the Acting High Commissioner for Zimbabwe to protest at the Zimbabwe Army's detention and apparent torture of two journalists. I have written to the Zimbabwe Foreign Minister, and our High Commissioner in Harare has raised our concerns with both Government Ministers and officials. Our officials in London and Harare are in regular contact with human rights groups.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Usama bin Laden had invested in the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum; and if he will make a statement. [71762]
  200
  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Usama bin Laden's past association with Sudan is well known. He had numerous business interests there and we believe that he still has.

  We do not have evidence to indicate whether or not these interests included the Al-Shifa plant.

  Media Allegations (Rebuttals)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries, and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [71858]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In common with other Departments, the work of the press officers in this Department includes responding to any misinformed allegations concerning Government policy or activity which are published in the media. They are supported in this work by other officials as necessary.

  Because this is a routine part of the Department's work and it is not separately recorded from other tasks, to provide the further information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Caribbean Banana Producers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss the present circumstances and future trading prospects of the Caribbean banana producers; and if he will make a statement. [71421]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the 7 December General Affairs Council. The Agenda for this meeting covered the dispute with the US over the EU banana regime (the means by which the EU gives preferential access to banana imports from Caribbean ACP producers). Since then my right hon. Friend has on several occasions discussed the dispute, and its implications for UK industry and the Caribbean, with the US Secretary of State.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will receive a substantive answer to his question concerning ministerial use of RAF and chartered aircraft to which a holding answer was given on 4 February (Ref. 69074). [72297]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 738.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon
The Earl of St. Germans—Took the Oath.

Turkey: Elections
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they consider should be taken by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to ensure that the general elections to be held in Turkey are free and fair.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, like all participating states, Turkey is committed under the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Copenhagen Document of 1990 to ensure that its election procedures are free and fair. Should Turkey be found to be in breach of its commitments with regard to the conduct of the elections, it will be for participating states to consider what action should be taken.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, considering that the OSCE, through its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has monitored some 80 elections in the past and plans to take an interest in no fewer than 12 during the current year, does the Minister not agree that it is extraordinary that Turkey should be omitted from the list? Has the Minister noticed that attempts are being made to ban the only pro-Kurdish party in the field; that several hundred of its leaders, including Murat Bozlak, have been arrested and are charged with very serious offences; that the offices have been raided; and that every measure has been taken by the Turkish authorities to prevent HADEP from having a fair chance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is aware that some 3,000 HADEP members were arrested in November last year. The overwhelming majority of them were released. In the past week or so 500 have been arrested and we must wait and see what arises. I think the noble Lord must accept that it is usual for OSCE countries which are having elections to invite OSCE monitors. The OSCE does not go in unless invited. I can safely say that Her Majesty's Government would be delighted if the Turkish Government were to consider an OSCE invitation appropriate.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government invite the Turkish Government to give such an invitation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure we can raise the matter with the Turkish
832
Government but, as I am sure the noble Lord will understand, it is always preferable if the inviting government really are prepared to co-operate with those who are sent in to monitor; otherwise the monitoring process becomes largely null and void.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the case that several Turkish members of parliament are either imprisoned or in exile, that 14 separate political parties have been banned since 1982, and that military courts regularly try civilians for political offences?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, we are extremely worried about the operation of the state security courts. It is one of the issues regularly raised with the Turkish Government, bilaterally as well as through the European institutions. Moreover, we have repeatedly raised the imprisonment of the Kurdish DEP members of parliament, including, of course, Mrs. Leyla Zana, whom we have discussed previously in your Lordships' House. We have stressed that the conviction of elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their opinions can only damage Turkey's international reputation and standing.
Lord Rea: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree that conditions inside Turkey leading up to the elections would be much calmer if Turkey were openly seen to be fair during the handling of the interrogation and trial of Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader who has just been captured, and to be adhering to the convention on torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners to which it is a signatory? Will the Government make representations to that effect?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is, of course, to be desired that the widespread reports of the use of torture in Turkey are properly investigated. To that end, we are very pleased that the UN special rapporteur on torture has now been able to complete his visit to Turkey. In respect of the position on Mr. Ocalan, perhaps I may say that many have commented on the helpful part that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, played last week in ensuring that the difficulties experienced outside the Greek Embassy were properly addressed and peacefully resolved. But, of course, the trial of Mr. Ocalan, will be very much a touchstone. At present we have no knowledge of the proceedings, venue, or, indeed, the type of trial to which he is likely to be subjected. We hope that the undertakings made by Prime Minister Ecevit that the trial is a fair one will be honoured.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in this House we all value human rights and care for human dignity. Can Her Majesty's Government give consideration to the situation of a state dealing with citizens who deny the validity of the state, a problem which Her Majesty's Government also face?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we understand that Turkey has perfectly proper security considerations, which tend to be centred on the existence of the PKK. Like the Turkish Government, we

833
have very considerable anxieties about the operation of the PKK and its espousal of ceasefires, unfortunately, it seems, closely followed, by the breaking of those ceasefires. We are worried by a number of incidents, including those on 17th November last year, in which citizens have been injured. We are also concerned about attacks on a number of public servants in Turkey. I think they bear out the anxieties to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in view of the forthcoming elections and in the light of the recent mass protest by Kurds and the impending trial of Abdullah Ocalan, is the Minister concerned that there will be an escalation of Kurdish separatist violence and of subsequent repression? Given that the Turkish Prime Minister has recently said that the Kurds will never have political autonomy, do the Government have an ethical strategy for a just and lasting peace in separatist conflicts within sovereign states?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have addressed the issue of the Kurds with the Turkish Government on a number of occasions. As is our practice in all such matters, we have urged the Turkish Government to respect the cultural traditions of the Kurdish people. Where people are arrested and become subject to trials, we have urged that those trials should be fair, observable and open. Moreover, we give help bilaterally to the Turks on the question of the institutions of justice and the police. We also help through the European institutions. I believe we have a fairly comprehensive package on the points which the noble Lord raises.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the American Government share the concerns that she has indicated in respect of the attitude of the Turkish Government to the elections?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the attitude of the American Government is a question for them. I have no detailed knowledge of that. I am well aware of the position in Europe, and the Question is about the OSCE. However, as the noble Lord has referred to the attitude of the United States Government, I shall make it my business to find out and write to him accordingly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that the OSCE rules, to which the Minister referred in her Answer, allow a state to escape scrutiny simply by not issuing an invitation to observers and that the Turks have consistently done that for the past 15 years as regards the conflict in the south east? Will the Minister consider proposing at the next OSCE summit that the rules be amended so that elections and other human rights matters dealt with in the various Helsinki instruments can be scrutinised, notwithstanding the refusal of the state concerned to issue an invitation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have said that we shall do what we can to encourage the
834
Turks to issue the invitations to which I referred. However, participating states cannot escape scrutiny altogether if they choose not to invite observers, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. Turkey knows that it has clear commitments under the OSCE. It knows that the participating states expect it to fulfil those obligations. We expect the relevant organs of the OSCE, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the representative on freedom and the media, to take up any shortcomings with the Turks. The fact that a state does not invite observers does not mean that no action will be taken.

Community Pharmacies: Resale Price Maintenance
2.46 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any contingency plans to ensure that local communities do not lose the services of community pharmacies if resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines ends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Restrictive Practices Court has only recently considered the application from the Director-General of Fair Trading for leave to challenge resale price maintenance and has yet to announce its decision. It is premature to conclude that resale price maintenance will end in the near future, or that communities will lose access to pharmacy services as a result. The arguments and evidence have yet properly to be aired before the court. When they are, we will be much better placed to consider the likely consequences and to develop any necessary plans.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Did she see the public tributes to Mrs. Gill Hawksworth for opening her small Mirfield pharmacy on 28th December in response to a flu epidemic, and helping 300 people, 75 of whom would otherwise have gone to accident and emergency departments or have put further pressure on local doctors? Yet her pharmacy and some 3,000 others will face closure if, perversely, resale price maintenance is ended and nothing is done to secure their survival. Is it not high time that all of us insisted that fair trade is not just about price, but also access, service and meeting the needs of local communities, not least of severely disabled people, the elderly and mothers with young children?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the debate about resale price maintenance and access to community pharmacies is much wider than simply about the price of individual products. I am sure that the court will consider all aspects of the issue, including the question of access, before reaching its decision, and that that decision will have to be justified as being in the overall public

835
interest. The Government recognise that community pharmacists are highly trained professionals and that as well as dispensing medicines they provide, as in the case instanced by my noble friend, an easily accessible and highly valued source of advice on a range of health and healthcare matters. We pay tribute to that. As I said in my Answer, I do not think that at this stage we can make any predictions about large numbers of community pharmacies closing. We must consider the basic issue of access to pharmacy services for the population as a whole.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that once one uses resale price maintenance in this way there is no end to the applications that could be used? Therefore, the only logical, if highly undesirable, method of dealing with the matter would be direct grants to such shops.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on the point. As I understand it, the argument which arose during the proceedings on the Competition Bill, and which faces us now, is not about the overall aim—which is ensuring access to high quality primary care, including pharmacy services—but about whether that is best achieved by price control overall; or whether we should develop mechanisms which already exist like the essential small pharmacies scheme, which ensures a minimum level of NHS income for small pharmacies; or ensure in rural areas that there is access to GP dispensing of medicines so that we provide the access but do so in a targeted way.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what representations the Department of Health has made to the OFT? Further, in the light of the debate about the role of community pharmacists, can the noble Baroness say when the Government's community pharmacy strategy is due to be published?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the issue of representations, resale price maintenance is a competition matter that is appropriately dealt with by the court. It would not be right for Ministers to intervene in that respect. However, the community pharmacy strategy to which the noble Lord referred is an important element in the way in which we can develop the very vital services that community pharmacists provide. There has been a large number of responses to the invitation from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to comment on this, and he recently held round-table discussions with pharmacy, nursing and medical leaders. There are many ideas floating around and many complicated issues to consider. However, I hope that it will not be too long before we can publish the strategy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that once these community pharmacists—I have supported them on no less than three occasions in your Lordships' House—are closed by the order of the court they can never re-open? Therefore, surely it is wholly unsatisfactory to leave the
836
matter in the air for the decision of a court when the Government can do something to ensure that they are not closed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if I may say so. it is not the case that an order of a court would close down a community pharmacy if the argument is around the economic consequences which would flow from the abolition of resale price maintenance and the effect that it might have on the economic viability of individual businesses. I take the point made by the noble Lord that it is important to provide these pharmacy services to all patients who need them. However, there is more than one way of doing so. For example, we could look at health action zones to see whether it would be possible to provide pharmacy services in, say, healthy living centres to maximise benefit to local communities. I accept that there is an issue here that we must address; but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I believe that the debate is whether it is best addressed through price controls.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I wanted to ask my noble friend about—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I think it is the feeling of the House that we should move on. I am sure that my noble friend will have another opportunity to put his question.

European Commission: Contractual Payments
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Commission is fulfilling its obligations to pay its contractual commitments to British institutions and companies within 60 days.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we understand that the noble Baroness is referring to the payment due to the West India Committee. This contract was between the West India Committee and the European Commission, with no involvement by Her Majesty's Government. We are advised by Commission officials that one of the causes of delay has been the lack of funds in 1998 and the lack of a facility to sire funds between budgets. They tell us that they hope to make the payment within the next two weeks, but we cannot be certain.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the Minister realise that I do not consider that to be a satisfactory Answer to my Question at all? The noble Lord had no right whatever to raise the particular instance of the organisation with which, I admit, I am connected and in respect of which, therefore, I declare an interest. When I was asked about the matter behind my Question

837
I stated that it had a general application. Is the Minister aware that there are a great many organisations that are owed very considerable sums of money, many of which have been waiting for payment for well over 120 days? That causes serious hardship to small businesses. I believe that both the noble Lord and the Government should look into this non-payment of money to firms doing work for the European Community.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness should be offended by the nature of my response. I understood from her indirectly that this was what she was concerned about and I sought to try to address her specific concerns rather than give a brush-off, which I might otherwise have had to give. However, if I did wrong, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House.
Yes, of course, the noble Baroness is right, I recognise that the West India Committee is not the only example; indeed, as a sub-contractor to the European Commission in the 1970s I experienced comparable problems myself. She is also right to say that there is something wrong at the Court of Denmark. We have been making very serious representations about late payment and about the payment of interest on late payments. I understand that the European Union has set up a new internal organisation to look at late payment procedures. We hope that the establishment of the new organisation will help to improve the situation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that behind the Question there is a broader issue of the built-in inefficiencies within the Commission at present? Are the Government pressing for thorough-going reform of the Commission, including perhaps a reduction in the number of commissioners to ensure that the business of the European Union is effectively carried on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was criticised for being too precise in my Answer and for not responding to the more general issue of late payments. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is now inviting me to comment on the efficiency of the European Commission as a whole, which is quite apart from the issue of late payments. I believe that that is going too far.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as regards the Minister's second answer to my noble friend Lady Young, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government think it acceptable for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to give brush-offs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; that is why I did not do it. I did not give a brush-off.

NHS: Pay Award Funding
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the additional funding required from health authorities beyond the £100 million from the central fund for modernisation of the NHS to meet the NHS pay awards announced recently.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, health authorities were allocated average funding increases of 6.5 per cent. for next year. Above this, an additional £100 million from the modernisation fund will support local recruitment and retention and the modernisation of the nurses' payscales. It is our assessment that no additional funding will be needed to meet the costs of the awards and to succeed in recruiting and retaining the staff that the NHS needs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but I cannot accept that no additional funding will be required. Can the Minister tell the House where the funding will come from to pay the many people within the NHS who are due for pay increases but who are not covered by the pay review boards?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said, the average increase for every health authority in the country is 6.5 per cent. for next year. The pay increase that the NHS review bodies recommended averages out at about 4.8 per cent. A tranche of that—something like 0.8 per cent.—will be met by the £100 million from the modernisation fund for the specific issues around local recruitment and retention. Within that very generous overall increase, it is our belief that there is room to fund these awards, including the non-pay review body awards.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has seen the figures produced by the NHS Confederation. It estimates that, as a result of having been able to budget for only a 2.5 per cent. increase, despite the 4.8 actual increase that the Minister mentioned, and because only £100 million will be coming from the modernisation fund, there will actually be a 0.9 per cent. shortfall. Does the Minister agree with that figure?
Baroness Hayman: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that figure for the reasons that I gave earlier. It is interesting to note that now we are being accused of putting only £100 million from the modernisation fund into the pay bill. I thought the line of argument proposed earlier was that all the money from the modernisation fund would go into the pay bill and we would not be able to use it for modernisation.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while it is natural for all noble Lords to be concerned about the funding of the health service,

839
it is important to remember that some of the new developments, such as cutting the number of local commissioning bodies from 4,000 to 500, the development of NHS Direct and the development of technology within the NHS, will enable us to make far better use of the available resources?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why it is important that we safeguard the modernisation fund as it allows us to unlock savings within the service to plough back into patient care. That is why the £50 million that is being spent on implementing the information strategy, the £30 million that is being spent on modernising A&E departments, and the £40 million on other capital improvements—including schemes to improve waiting times and, of course, the introduction of NHS Direct—together show ways in which we can provide a higher quality service at a lower cost.
Earl Howe: My Lords, during recent weeks we have seen a number of announcements about NHS spending. How are the Government keeping a tally of the balance of uncommitted funds in the modernisation fund? Is the noble Baroness able to tell the House what amount of the fund remains uncommitted?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I reassure the noble Earl that, as regards the £1.2 billion of the modernisation fund, the money that we have spent and allocated to staff development, recruitment and retention, to which I alluded earlier, will not prejudice the other blocks of money clearly allocated to tackling waiting times, the modernisation of A&E departments, NHS Direct, primary care, public health issues such as smoking cessation, and improving mental health services. We are keeping a running tally and the figures add up.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following the reply given by the noble Baroness to her noble friend in the previous answer but one, to what extent are the savings she referred to offset by the increased costs from the development of new and expensive surgical procedures, which seems to be rapid, and the actuarial rise in life expectation which enormously increases the number of customers for the health service?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, those are not simple questions to which simple answers, in terms of money, can be given. The noble Lord suggests that technological advances in surgery result in greater expense. They can, of course, also result in less expense. For example, in the case of laprascopic surgery, people have to spend less time in hospital. The costs of some new and seemingly expensive drug treatments can be offset against not having to admit people into hospital in the first place. Therefore, they can result in a saving of money. These are the complexities involved in running a health service with the demographic and technological demands that there are upon it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the percentage she announced is to be
840
given as an extra amount? I understood that that was not just for pay but applied to all the expenses in the health service. Will she clarify that that is the case?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to clarify that for the noble Baroness. It is a 6.5 per cent. average funding increase across the board, on which there will be other demands as well as the demands of pay. I suggested that there was some headroom there. We have to consider also in the equation the cost savings that can result from efficiency savings.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that some of the money that was recently diverted from the original five good causes in the lottery towards the new opportunities fund—of which health forms a major part—will now be put towards this extra cost to the NHS?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord's question, I cannot confirm that. The basis on which new opportunities funding would be made available to the NHS is clearly based on the ground of additionality for additional resources. We have seen that in regard to the healthy living centres which are an innovation. The proposals that are out for consultation at the moment involve improving cancer services across a range of areas in partnership with local communities. That is in addition to the baseline funding which has already been announced.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the chair of the New Opportunities Fund. Does my noble friend agree that the money allocated is done so clearly on the ground of additionality and also to sustain the long established tradition of co-operation with the voluntary sector and community groups which help the NHS with regard to its services to patients?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that. I think all of us who have been associated with the health service know how grateful it is for the support of charitable bodies and local communities in fundraising to enhance the services that are provided by the NHS.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, in view of the long list of speakers for the debate which is scheduled to take place this afternoon and tomorrow on the White Paper on reform of your Lordships' House I thought it might be helpful to indicate to the House the result of discussions through the usual channels. While the debate is, of course, not time-limited, if the average time that is taken by each of the Back-Bench speakers is eight minutes, the debate would last about 14 hours in total. This would mean we conclude at a reasonable hour on each of the two evenings. As a second day has been granted for the

841
debate I am sure it is in the interests of all your Lordships who will be present throughout the two days for proceedings not to be unduly extended.

House of Lords Reform
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to move, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start on a pleasant note. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I wish the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition a happy birthday. It is not, I trust, a vain hope to anticipate that despite the length of the debate he will have time for a celebratory dinner at least on one evening during the next couple of days.
In opening the debate I shall try—as I always do—to be as helpful as possible to your Lordships' House. Tomorrow evening my noble friend the Chief Whip will respond to as many as possible of the specific points made during the debate. That may be a hard task but it is one I am sure he will rise to with his usual skill.
But I am afraid I may disappoint your Lordships if it is expected that today I will reveal some change of direction or new policy initiative by the Government. The Government's position on reform of your Lordships' House remains unchanged from that we originally drew up before the general election, which is expanded in the White Paper.
In the three previous debates we have held on reform in your Lordships' House since last October, I tried to set out the principles of our policy, to explain the approach we have adopted to put that policy into practice, to describe the narrow parameters and intentions of the legislation which is now being considered by another place, and to indicate the route to long-term reform which the White Paper considers. I am pleased to have a further opportunity to speak on some of the White Paper proposals, but I repeat that I fear your Lordships will hear nothing new from the Government Benches. The Government's view is well known and has been consistently developed.
I hesitate to ascribe motives to Members of your Lordships' House but it may be that the large number of Conservative Peers who will speak in the debate—some of whom I must say are somewhat unaccustomed contributors to the speakers list—are more concerned to hear the opinions of their own Front Bench than those of the Government.
Noble Lords opposite will be aware that no collective statement on reform has emerged since the confusion and upheaval of last December. Back-Bench Conservative hereditary Peers would, for example, be right to ask if their leadership still supports the 1997 campaign position which described them,
"as an asset to democracy … who should be defended in principle".
842
Recent speeches by Opposition spokesmen in another place appeared to abandon that policy; nevertheless Conservative MPs voted against the Government's first stage reform Bill at Second Reading. It remains a confusing picture.
I am glad that we shall hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as well as the noble Lord the new Leader of the Conservative Party. I hope that we shall see a united policy emerge because from the Government's perspective it would be helpful to have that agreed statement. As the noble Viscount and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will well know, we would genuinely prefer to proceed to reform by consensus. But we can only try to build consensus if we know the basis for discussion, for negotiation and, one hopes, for agreement in the future.
The Government's White Paper Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords opens with the manifesto commitment, on which the Labour Party was elected by a large majority in 1997. At the risk of falling foul of the Companion's strictures on tedious repetition, I shall venture to repeat that commitment today:
"The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the rights of the hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first step in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered.
The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. 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. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.
A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform".
As noble Lords will be aware, since the general election we have decided to build on the process of review by appointing a Royal Commission. I shall return to the commission later in my speech.
The White Paper falls into three broad areas. The first part discusses the present House of Lords, and the need for the so called "stage one" Bill to remove the rights of hereditary Peers to be Members of Parliament. This Bill was rightly described by my right honourable friend the President of the Council when she introduced it to Parliament as "short, but momentous". It is now in the middle of its passage through another place. It is being considered by a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore your Lordships will appreciate that it is clearly inappropriate to discuss the detail of the Bill's provisions in today's debate in your Lordships' House. I look forward with enthusiasm to an early Second Reading debate when the Bill reaches this House. I only note in passing that at Second Reading in another place the democratically elected House overwhelmingly endorsed the Bill by a majority of 246—one of the largest majorities of this Parliament, and 69 above the already very large technical majority of 177 which the Government enjoy.
The second section of the White Paper deals with the so-called "transition House"—the House which will exist after the passage of the stage one Bill and before

843
long-term reform is complete. The exact composition of that House may, of course, depend on possible amendments to the stage one Bill. I would remind your Lordships that, in any case, approximately 500 life Peers will remain in the transitional House—life Peers appointed by eight successive Prime Ministers over the past 40 years.
Two circulating myths about the transition House are dispelled by those simple facts. First, it will not be a dysfunctional rump, unable to carry out its proper role; and, secondly, it will not be made up of placemen sent here exclusively by today's Prime Minister.
The plans for the transitional House are not in the Bill before Parliament for two reasons: first, precisely because they are intended to be transitional; and, secondly, because there is no need for legislation to achieve the results we want. As we said in the manifesto the Government are not proposing any changes in functions in the transitional stage.
We have therefore determined on a non-statutory package of measures to regulate membership of the House during this period. The Prime Minister has committed himself to take steps to reduce his sole powers of patronage. First, we intend only to seek broad parity of numbers with the main Opposition party, and to allow proportionate creations for the Liberal Democrats and other parties. including of course the Cross-Benchers. In our manifesto we said that we thought party strengths in this House should, over time, move towards reflecting the share of the popular vote at the previous general election. We have therefore now committed ourselves to a smaller share—some 40 per cent. smaller—of the overall strength of this House than we proposed in our manifesto. Again, the simple facts reveal the true situation. In the general election of 1997, the Conservative Party won 34 per cent. of the vote and yet has 66 per cent. of the membership of this House who take a Party whip. By contrast, the Labour Party won 48 per cent. of the vote and has only 24 per cent. of the membership of this House.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness quite so early in her speech, but will she reflect on the statement that she has just made about party strengths? She makes great play about the independent Cross-Benchers—and rightly so. Why, then, does she not include them in the statistics she has just given?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that would have no impact whatever on the relative strength of the Conservative Opposition, which is the main Opposition party to the Government party, the Labour Party. That is what I was trying to illustrate. I am very happy to talk in more general terms about the membership of the Cross-Benches. I will come to that later in my remarks.
Some of my colleagues may well find that those figures as they relate to the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and their relative strengths and relation to the popular vote, suggest that we are being too generous to the Conservative Party in our proposals for the transition House. They certainly do not suggest an intention to pack the transition House.
844
This proposal is in some contrast to the position of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who, during the previous administration, bolstered their already very large built-in majority created by the relative party strengths in the hereditary peerage by appointing more than twice as many life Peers to their Benches as the Opposition.
But I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the Government have been consistently committed to an important Cross-Bench element in this House. On the Cross-Benches sit those Peers who do not want to be associated with a single party; they are genuinely independent.
The second part of our plan for the transitional House is to establish an independent appointments commission to recommend names for Cross-Bench Peers. There have been numerous suggestions that this body will be packed with cronies to ensure that it selects cronies. Quite frankly, again that accusation does not stand up to the simple facts. The advisory appointments committee will be set up as an advisory non-departmental public body; as such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. His rules on the appointment of its members will therefore apply. I remind your Lordships that the rules were drawn up under the previous administration. Presumably, therefore, the Conservative Party believes they are adequate. Among other things they involve the appointment of an independent assessor in the appointments process.
The representatives of the three main political parties invited to sit on the commission will be chosen by their respective parties. How the parties choose their members will naturally be a matter for them. Of course, the final appointments—and I expect noble Lords opposite to make this point—will be made by Ministers. But Ministers and, through them, the Commission are accountable to Parliament.
During the transitional phase, membership of this House will continue to involve the award of a life peerage. The final recommendations to the Queen—as they always have done—will constitutionally have to come from the Prime Minister. Therefore, the third element in our proposed arrangements is that the Prime Minister has promised that he will not interfere in the details of nominations from the other party leaders, or from the appointments commission. It is the first time that a public commitment to this effect—different from some past practice—has been made.
Taken together, this package of measures amounts to a very considerable safeguard against the abuse of prime ministerial power in relation to nominations to your Lordships' House. It proves that the Government's motive in removing the hereditary Peers as a first step of reform is not intended to be a way of gaining control of the majority membership of your Lordships' House.
These proposals relate to the transition House, which the Government see as being just that—a temporary, transitional bridge to a fully reformed second Chamber. I announced to your Lordships on 14th October last year that the Government would set up a Royal Commission to examine these issues.

845
The third part of the White Paper deals with the terms of reference for the commission and the options for reform which the Government consider it appropriate for the commission to consider. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the commission, is in his place and will speak later in the debate. He may well take the opportunity to outline to your Lordships the way in which he and his colleagues intend to work. I am also pleased that other members of the Royal Commission who are also Members of the House—my noble friend Lady Dean and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—are also in their places. I am sure that this debate will prove helpful to them and inform their discussions. Perhaps I may again, on behalf of your Lordships, and indeed on this occasion on behalf of the Government, thank all those members of the Royal Commission for undertaking this important task.
I have previously told your Lordships that the Government themselves do not plan to give evidence to the commission. The Labour Party will do so, as I imagine will other political parties represented in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will also confirm that it is, of course, open to individual Peers to submit their ideas and opinions. However, since the Royal Commission was established, the Government have been asked some specific questions about its terms of reference and its timetable. It seems sensible to respond to at least two of those today.
The first is the timetable. Noble Lords will remember that we asked the commission to report by the end of this year. This is a demanding schedule, but the Government are confident that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues can meet it. After all, the issues surrounding reform of your Lordships' House have been extensively discussed for a hundred years. The issues are intellectually and politically challenging, but we know what they are, and we know what are the options for addressing them. There is frankly no need for a long period of primary research, as there is sometimes with Royal Commissions that are set up to consider, for example, fundamental issues of social policy. The Royal Commission, we feel, can move almost immediately to its analysis and recommendations.
The Government are determined to maintain momentum on reform. We want to see a speedy report so that we can, as the White Paper states, respond to the recommendations in advance of the next general election. The more we can achieve consensus on the recommendations, the more rapidly we will be able to move to a fully reformed second Chamber. That is the Government's strategy. It is clear and unequivocal. I can only state again that we have no wish to remain stationary on the transitional bridge.
Perhaps I may repeat the Royal Commission's terms of reference as their scope has sometimes been questioned. The amendment today of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition seems perhaps to suggest that
846
they might be both extended and additionally constrained. The terms of reference, which are published in the White Paper, are as follows:
"Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union: to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber; and to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and those functions".
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness about one point in the White Paper. Page 1 of the document states that the purpose of the Government's reforms is to make this Chamber more effective. Page 40 refers to lessening the time by which this House can delay legislation passed in another place. There is a positive reference to that. If the object is to make this House more effective. how would that be served by lessening the time by which this House can delay legislation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope he will understand that that is precisely the argument I am seeking to develop in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. If, by the conclusion of the passage in my speech on that, he feels that I have not done so, perhaps we can return to it, but it is specifically that point I am about to address.
Perhaps I may return to the question of powers, which was the point of the noble Lord's intervention. I have been asked whether the terms of reference enable the Royal Commission to look at the potential powers of a reformed House. The amendment of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition calls for a specific "exclusion clause" to ensure that no possible reduction in the theoretical powers can be considered. Perhaps I may look, first, at the question of the remit to consider powers. The terms of reference clearly include roles and functions and they must legitimately include looking at powers, especially in relation to the legislative function. I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I had a semantic or perhaps conceptual confusion when he raised this point during Oral Questions recently. I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House if I was unclear about that at the time.
The purpose of the argument in Chapter 7 of the White Paper, to which the amendment of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition refers, is to discuss different approaches to the powers of a reformed Chamber. The chapter notes that today's House of Lords observes what could be called "self-denying ordinances" in the use of its powers over legislation, self-denying ordinances which rest largely on the self-regulation of the present House and its understanding of the limitations of its existing composition. The White Paper argument discusses the possibility of perhaps institutionalising the present understandings; leaving the powers intact but formally restricting the circumstances in which they may be used. An alternative might be to

847
reduce or streamline the "theoretically" available powers, recognising that they may in practice then be used more frequently.
Those options will obviously be the basis of significant debate for the Royal Commission, but at this stage I think that the amendment of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is unnecessary because it elevates prematurely a suggested issue for discussion by the Royal Commission to a formal government proposal. That is not what the White Paper intends or indeed says.
However, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, overall, the Government accept the broad sentiments of his amendment. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out, the first page of the White Paper emphasises that Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy, and that for Parliament to carry out its purpose it must act with authority and integrity. That principle is the basis for our proposals for reform of this Chamber; to improve the effectiveness and balance of the House so that it can play a full and proper role in Parliament, a role which necessarily includes a significant scrutiny of legislation and of the executive. Chapter 2 of the White Paper concludes:
"A fully reformed second chamber will have a vital role in the renewed democracy of Britain".
I hope that we can all agree to work to that end. But, as I say, I think the noble Lord's formal amendment is unnecessary.
I fully understand the concerns that have prompted 60 hereditary Peers to speak to the Motion today. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say once more that many of their individual contributions to the work of this House are highly valued. But I hope in turn that they will understand the Government's concerns and the Government's priorities. As I emphasised last November in opening the debate on the Queen's Speech in relation to constitutional change, constitutional reform is of great importance to this Government, but so too are other legislative priorities. As legislators, we have a duty to look beyond our own affairs, beyond this Chamber and beyond Westminster. We have before us Bills which are central to the cares and concerns of most people in Britain. We are currently considering measures to improve access to justice and to change the National Health Service. Both of those Bills began their passage in your Lordships' House. Other significant legislation has recently included Bills on youth justice and criminal evidence, on social security and on pollution.
I must tell your Lordships that I was disturbed when I saw the lengthening list of speakers for today's debate—disturbed that this debate might disrupt proper consideration on the important Health Bill, which was due to begin its Committee stage tomorrow.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am surprised by that reaction. However, I am glad to say that this potential problem, like so many problems of its kind, has been satisfactorily resolved through the usual channels. Nevertheless, 1 must point out that even on the
848
Chief Whip's optimistic assumption about the length of individual speakers' contributions, by the time this debate reaches its conclusion there will have been over 40 hours of general debate on House of Lords reform since last October. That compares with 14 hours on the National Health Service, seven hours on the economy and four hours debating homelessness. In the four-hour debate on homelessness there were three speakers from the Conservative Back-Benches compared with the 62 who want to speak today.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say why the other place was given a week's holiday if a jam in legislation is feared'?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not entirely understand the noble Lord's point. In fact, the other place was given two days. If he refers to the passage of the NHS Bill, as I have just said, that Bill began its passage in this House. Therefore, its passage this time entirely depends on the scheduling of business in this place and has nothing to do with the other place.
As I said, in the four-hour debate, which was the time given by your Lordships to homelessness, there were four Conservative Back-Bench speakers compared with the 62 who want to make their case today.
Individual noble Lords of course have the proper right to decide their own priorities. For instance, many of my colleagues seem to have decided to concentrate their contributions on consideration of the reform Bill when it reaches your Lordships' House. Looking at the list of speakers, it appears that most Liberal Democrats have made the same judgment. Personal choices are indeed legitimate. But I am sure the House as a whole will agree that we must collectively guard our reputation a:3 a serious legislative Chamber.
The Government want to enhance the reputation and the effective role of this House. We do not want to lend credence to the unicameralists nor give ammunition to those who describe your Lordships as "predominately driven by self-interest and out of touch with everyday concerns".
In his introduction to the White Paper, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister writes,
"for too long Britain has got by with a Second Parliamentary Chamber which is less good than it could he".
He goes on to say that the reform process proposed in the White Paper will create a second Chamber of which both Parliament and the people can be proud.
We are now embarked on that reform process. I look forward to our forthcoming debates on the first stage Bill. I look forward to the work of the Royal Commission and to its report. I look forward beyond that to the next stages of reform.
The White Paper charts clear steps towards a renewed Chamber which will be a significant part of Parliament in the new century. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's White Paper Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183)—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, as an amendment to Baroness Jay of Paddington's Motion, at end insert "; urges Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as their objectives an increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of their ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account; and therefore specifically calls on the Royal Commission to reject the proposition in paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper that the available powers of this House might be significantly reduced.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Baroness for her felicitations on my birthday. I hope that the rest of the House will not take the length of her speech as an example to be followed.
I have heard some say in the past few days that there is nothing new to say on the subject of the House of Lords. Indeed, the noble Baroness herself has not disappointed us. Others have said that this debate is unnecessary. But I have also heard that this is all a matter for the Royal Commission and that we should therefore wait and see.
It is an odd doctrine that it is right for Ministers to have a view on everything, down to the new England football manager, but that this ancient House should not have a chance to express a view on its own future. To those who say that this debate is unnecessary, I say: just look at the list of nearly 100 speakers. Sadly, it includes only five Labour Back-Benchers. Yet, at the end of last week, there were seven. What has happened to the noble Lords, Lord Haskel, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in the intervening few days, which means that they have denied us their views during the course of this debate?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord charges me with adding my name to the list of speakers and then removing it. Perhaps he will reflect. When I put my name down, I thought that we were going to have a serious debate. When I saw the list lengthening dramatically, having been a Chief Whip for some time, I knew exactly what was happening. I was not prepared to play the game.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was not chiding the noble Lord for removing his name; I was chiding him because it does not allow this House to hear again his valid views on its future.
Let no one doubt that Members of this House are deeply interested in the future of this House and of Parliament—not from some vain sense of our own self-importance, but because we are deeply suspicious of where the Government may want to take us. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to explain their vision of the future—which was sadly lacking in the noble Baroness's speech. They must realise that there is no institution more precious than Parliament. Parliament is the vessel in which the liberties of the people are cradled and protected. Shatter that vessel, weaken that protection, and the ability of the ordinary person to stand up against all the petty tyrannies of the executive will be reduced.
850
How often in its history has it fallen to this House to protect the subject against the misguided actions and ambitions of the executive, whatever party may be the government of the day. This House, however reformed, must have the freedom, the will and the authority to perform that role in the future.
It often seems to me—and we have heard it from another place time and again lately—that hereditary Peers are the last group in our society whom it is politically correct to abuse for who they are, not what they do. Whatever may become of the current Members of this House—and the Government with their majority in another place can do what they will with this House—I put it to your Lordships that we must fight to ensure that the ability of this House to check bad law is no less.
That is why I have tabled an amendment to the Motion moved by the noble Baroness: to give this House a chance to state a view on its future role, its functions and powers, in a way that the narrow compass of the Bill itself may not allow.
I know that making an amendment to a "take note" Motion is a rare occurrence in this House. But this whole situation is unusual. The Government's handling of it is extraordinary in its combination of high-handedness and low manoeuvre. I believe it is appropriate for this House to have a chance to express a formal opinion on its future powers. Tomorrow evening I intend to give it that opportunity.
Of course we have debated the Government's vague plans and threats in the past. This time, at last, we do so with an official document before us. Sadly, the White Paper is not well written, informative or even accurate. It is a sorry thing. But it is the best apology for a policy that we can now expect to wring out of this grudging Government. This is the document that the Government never wanted to publish. This is the debate that they never wanted to have. And tomorrow is the day that they never wanted your Lordships' voices to be heard.
The Government have consistently prevaricated over their long-term plans for this House—and they are still doing so today. What are their opinions? Do they want this House to exercise more power, or less? Do the principles—the so-called better approach—set out in paragraph 7.26 of the White Paper represent the views of the noble Baroness? Or do they not?
The questions are not so hard. This House looks to its Leader to have the answer. Throughout last year, Ministers refused to provide even a relatively simple options paper. Your Lordships will remember my noble friend Lord Cranborne continually asking the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, why no options paper had been produced, or even better a Royal Commission. Answer came there none. Only when William Hague asked my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to produce an options paper, and he published an interim report in less than three months, did the Government crumble. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, told the House in October that the Government would after all, and reluctantly, publish a White Paper.

851
But what are we to make of this document? It says that it is about "modernising". But we are never told what modernising means. "Modernising" appears in five of the eight chapter headings. But what does it mean? It is never explained.
I worry about "modernising". It is a good slogan, but it is your Lordships' House no policy. And now we discover that it is just a veil drawn over the centralisation of power. When it came to electing a Labour leader in Wales, modernising was out like a shot. Old-fashioned gerrymandering was in. We do not want to see this House treated in such a cavalier fashion.
If instead of "modernising" the Government had used the word "strengthening" then we would have been on much more united ground. After all, in the face of an ever-rolling tide of executive power, what task is more important than to strengthen the authority of Parliament? That will be my party's objective in the weeks and months ahead, and when we return to power.
This debate should be about the kind of second chamber that the people of our country and this Parliament need. I believe in a strong and independent-minded House of Lords as part of a strengthened Parliament; a second chamber which is not a simple rubber stamp, but one that can hold the executive truly to account.
If all that comes out of this process of reform is a long-term retirement home for ex-politicians and former civil servants, admirable though they may be, with a nod to elected members of the new parliaments and a smattering of the good and great; and if, with all of that, comes a reduction in the powers of the House, then this whole process will have been wasted. Another sad, perhaps even closing chapter, will have been written in the 20th century story of the debasement of the authority of Parliament.
It may be another generation before this subject is broached again. That is why we are so opposed to the two-stage process chosen by the Government. A single-stage reform, after the Royal Commission had reported, would have been so much better. The Government turned down that advice. It put class prejudice before constitutional reform. So we are left—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be very glad to learn the noble Lord's proposition for a reformed House of Lords. Even though his eight minutes are now up, I am sure that we will give him a few extra minutes in which to explain his ideas.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord must contain his patience for a few minutes more. I shall explain to the House exactly why the Tory Party will put thought before action rather than the reverse, which has been so prevalent in this Government.
We are left with a process which is muddled and confusing. Having sat on their hands for 21 months, the Government have demanded an answer from the Royal Commission in less than half that time. If the Government are in such a hurry, why do they not use the current parliamentary Session to deal with their priority business and leave the next Session of Parliament to
852
bring forward a properly thought-through plan with the consensus on which the noble Baroness tells us she is so keen. The process that we are currently going through is another classic example of action before thought; slogans before sense.
When we look at the White Paper we see in those pages a paradox which strikes right at the heart of the government's thinking. Throughout the White Paper the Government talk of "legitimising" the House. Chapter 1 states,
"The present House of Lords suffers from a lack of legitimacy because of its anachronistic and unrepresentative composition".
One might think that the Government wanted a stronger House made more legitimate by reform. But compare that with a passage in Chapter 7.26 which states baldly,
"A better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers".
It is never explained why the Government believe these powers to be theoretical or why they should be reduced. The paradox is that the Government believe that they can legitimise the House and reduce its powers all at the same time. The noble Baroness has not answered the question put to her by my noble friend Lord Lamont. Of course there are conventions in this House, but they are there precisely because there were, first, hereditary Peers in this House and, secondly, because post-1945 there were very few Labour Peers. That situation changes as soon as the noble Baroness and her party have the parity that they crave.
The Government's approach is wholly unacceptable to me and my party. What is the point of being a member of a legitimised and invigorated House of Lords when its ability to do anything has been weakened? I can imagine that there may be those who would still wish to be a member of such a House. But let no one doubt that this "new" House would only fit the popular stereotype of a House which is a weak and irrelevant body, with no chance of ever being able to influence important issues of the day. How can that be a worthy or lasting successor to the 700 years of service from this House?
It is easy to destroy, but hard to build. This House, and all its powers, can be scattered to the winds by one sweep of the Executive's mighty hand. How are we to replace a Chamber which is hard-working, inexpensive and effective? That surely is the critical question. No one following the sadly shallow debates in another place over recent weeks will have found an answer. With some honourable exceptions the debates reveal more about the inadequacies of another place than about our own. The cure for those who doubt the charge that we shall never get to stage two should be to look at Hansard to see just how confused are Members of another place.
"One can have any House that one wants as long as it is not the way it is and it does not have any power". That is the radical rallying cry from another place. A few brave souls mentioned an elected House. But too many are unicameralists or are just preparing their own nest for the future to want to build a strong, independent and authoritative chamber in place of the present one. It is as though our elected politicians have had a collective

853
loss of confidence. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission refer to the House of Commons remaining pre-eminent. That is fair enough. But it speaks volumes about the Government's own insecurities on this subject that the Royal Commission is forbidden from even discussing an alternative. Am I alone in my amazement at the revelation by Mr. Peter Mandelson that his was the lone voice in the Cabinet sub-committee calling for a Royal Commission? Where were the voices of the then Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I do not wish in any way to undermine the noble Lord's argument. Mr. Mandelson was not a member of the sub-committee when I and the Chief Whip were members. He held that post in his previous incarnation as Minister without Portfolio.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for giving way. May I assure him that there were voices inside the Government machine in favour of a Royal Commission. I made that very clear very early on in the process. I have no reason to dissent from that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord put the record straight. It was right for him to do so. He was also right in his initial instincts. I did not mean to accuse the noble Baroness of anything. I was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to the Government Chief Whip, who will no doubt wish to put the record straight tomorrow evening.
In some respects this insecurity prevalent in another place is not surprising. The long-term effects of Labour's continual attacks on the integrity of MPs is coming home. That is what has given the Prime Minister the opportunity he so relishes to run the country directly by inspired leak and injunction as the mood suits him. Last year, when Peter Mandelson made a speech in Bonn asking the question: "Is this the end of representative democracy?" he was saying something extremely significant about how the Labour Party views government and the parliamentary process.
All the necessary warnings are in place. We must declare here and now that the powers of this House and the responsibilities of Parliament should be reduced no further.
Of course, I hear the accusation, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that the Tory Party is repenting at leisure after years of undermining the parliamentary process and that this is a deathbed conversion to reforming the constitution. The answer to those accusations is simple. The Tory Party believes in the parliamentary process and we believe in parliamentary strength and stability.
This House is changing. The die is cast. It can never be the same again. But that does not mean that we should plunge forward in haste or stagger blindfolded, as the Government do, groping in the dark for a solution. The future of this House bears the most careful thought, and the fullest, most open debate. As Conservatives, we
854
believe in doing the thinking first. That is why I look forward to reading the deliberations of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern when they are published next month. That is why. when we as a party have decided on the way forward, we shall be making a presentation to the Royal Commission.
Soon we shall be faced with a narrow and offensive little Bill that seeks to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is a Bill that evades the big questions and betrays the spitefulness of small minds.
This debate, however, is not about that; it is about the big questions. It is about the long-term future of this House of Parliament and about whether we should mark our ground in defence of the principle that this House's ability to scrutinise and amend legislation and to ask the executive to think again should not be reduced. I find it hard to believe that any current Member of your Lordships' House would wish to see that happen.
I hope, even after the speech of the noble Baroness, that the Government may yet feel that they can accept this amendment. If the noble Baroness clings to her belief that my amendment is unnecessary, why cannot she accept it? But if the Government cannot, I shall ask the House to agree it, by Division if necessary. The amendment is broadly drafted, and I trust that the principles behind it will appeal to the widest possible group in the House. Tomorrow night will be the first, and conceivably the last, time that the House as currently composed can make a positive statement about the role of the House in the future, and in particular not to allow a lessening of its powers. I hope therefore that, if it comes to a vote, I shall be joined by all those who believe that at the very least no government should agree to any proposal that leaves this House weaker than before. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to Baroness Jay of Paddington's Motion, at and insert "; urges Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward the proposals in the White Paper to set as its objectives and increase in the independence of Parliament and an enhancement of its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the executive to account; and therefore specifically calls on the Royal Commission to reject the proposition in paragraph 7.26 of the White paper that the available powers of this House might be significantly reduced.".—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, when the White Paper was published on the 20th January I was doubtful whether there was much new for the House to discuss, coming as it has between our two-day debate last October and the Bill when it arrives from another place presumably after Easter. But on closer examination there is more to say about the White Paper, including about the transitional arrangements, than I suspected. This debate is clearly justified on those grounds alone.
Above all, however, on developments as historic, far-reaching and sensitive as these it is absolutely right that Members of this House, often directly affected by

855
them, should have the maximum opportunity to express their views. In that spirit I believe that it should be mainly a Back-Bench occasion when the Government should carefully listen. I must say to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that although I share her sense of priorities when she refers to homelessness and health I do not believe that that is a fair comparison in a matter of this constitutional importance.
There will be questions of a specific kind appropriate for the Government to answer. Perhaps a few of them will be asked by me. I hope that the ministerial arrangements—at the moment it appears that only the Government Chief Whip will reply—will allow for replies to important questions that arise in the course of this debate. I would much prefer to see them answered by Ministers in the Chamber—that is the best way to proceed—but I accept that that will not happen.
What I did not expect from the noble Baroness—and do not expect and would not want from the Government Chief Whip when he winds up—is any further attempt by the Government to influence the Royal Commission; nor should the Government pronounce views of their own on matters that the Royal Commission is to consider, thus anticipating its conclusions. That is for a later stage when the Royal Commission has reported. The noble Baroness said that there would be nothing new from the Government Benches. That turned out to be the case, and I welcome it.
The Royal Commission is safe rather than innovative. It carries no whiff of "epoch-making", but I wish it well. Despite having previously urged a quick report, I believe that it deserves some flexibility if a few more weeks will ensure a more thorough and considered document. Despite the observations of the noble Baroness this afternoon, she may want to take a rain check on that just in case.
I remain puzzled, however, about whether the Royal Commission can consider powers as well as the role and functions of the second Chamber. When I asked that question of the Leader of the House on the 20th January, having read the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, she explained why the Government had been careful,
"not to open up the rather difficult area of powers".—[Official Report 20/1/99; col. 591.]
But on the same day in another place the President of the Council, Mrs. Beckett, said in reply to a similar question:
"As for the powers of the replacement Chamber, they would be a matter for the commission to consider".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/99; col. 915.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that some confusion remains. It must be due entirely to my lack of clarity. In my earlier remarks I referred to the confusion which I thought had arisen with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The issue that I described in the original Statement was related to the comparative powers of the two Houses. Perhaps that was not made clear.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not believe that it was made clear because I cannot remember any reference to comparative powers before
856
the noble Baroness's remarks on that occasion. I believe that it still needs to be clarified. The Royal Commission does not include a reference to powers. If so, it is not clear to me how it is possible in the terms suggested by the President of the Council for the Royal Commission to consider them. There is confusion which I hope will be clarified. Perhaps a simple and considered statement by the Government Chief Whip at the end of our debate tomorrow night will help the House.
The noble Lord—like others, I wish him a happy birthday—has made an issue of the very point about comparative powers. We do not like amendments to "take note" debates, and we therefore do not propose to support him in the Lobby tomorrow evening. At the same time, we are very sympathetic to the noble Lord's cause. Guidance to the Royal Commission on the possible reduction of powers seems gratuitous, despite the context, given the exclusion of powers, to which I have already referred, from its terms of reference. This is also something that must be further explored.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. As to the question of powers, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has quite fairly conceded that what she said on 20th January was in error. She has said twice that the question of powers needs no further clarification and that it is before the Royal Commission. What more can the Leader of the House do?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I did not think that the noble Baroness had necessarily conceded that she was wrong on the previous occasion. She put a gloss on what she then said. I prefer that gloss to remain on the record in the Official Report to be looked at and considered by the Government Chief Whip when the time comes, as I suggested.
We on these Benches are concerned with the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. But where we can support the Government is in the general statement of underlying principles in paragraph 6 of Chapter 7: that the reformed House must remain the subordinate Chamber with the House of Commons pre-eminent. I go further. Any proposal that takes powers away from the House of Commons, or is seen to do so, will not succeed. Even the docile ranks of this Government—not here, of course, but in another place—would turn. I say that remembering vividly the course of the Parliament Bill in the Commons 30 years ago when it did not find favour even with many Labour Members of Parliament who loyally supported it.
I shall not try to anticipate the report of the Royal Commission any more than the Government should do. All I say is that any stable, long-term reform— I do not say permanent because the House will continue to evolve—must start from the powers, role and functions of a second Chamber. The first question is: what is it meant to do? Only then is it sensible to ask what sort of Members does such a House require; and, after that, how are we going to get it?
My preference remains for a predominantly elected second Chamber, but I am open to persuasion. I have changed my mind before. Indeed, I should be surprised

857
if any noble Lord who has followed the discussion over the years, taken part in recent debates, and read the White Paper, can be dogmatic. We should be ready to listen and to change our minds. It is also important that we should have a dialogue with the public at large.
I hope that the timetable for the Royal Commission and then cross-party talks will enable the Government to put firm proposals into their manifesto-1 think that that is what the noble Baroness has in mind—and that the modernised stage two House can be in place within about five years.
I should like to mention one other point about the longer term before saying something about a transitional House. I have thought for some time that there would be virtue if every government Bill started its life with a Second Reading in the Commons where its principle would be approved, and then moved on immediately for a Second Reading here. The Bill would then pass through all its stages in your Lordships' House before returning to the Commons where it would be picked up for its Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. That would enable the fully elected and politically representative House to have the first and effectively final say, but for your Lordships' House to carry out its full, expert process of scrutiny before the Commons had committed itself to details. The political role of the Commons would be maintained, perhaps enhanced. The role of scrutiny of your Lordships' House would be less inhibited by earlier Commons decisions.
I raise the matter now not as a major subject for discussion on this occasion, but because of paragraph 27 of Chapter 7 where there is an invitation to the Royal Commission to consider recommendations to the House about procedure. I am not sure about the weight of this suggestion. On the face of it, it is not an area in which the membership of the Royal Commission as a whole has an obvious competence. I should be grateful if Ministers would explain what they have in mind.
I turn now to the transitional House, debates upon which will occupy your Lordships for much of this year, and to which Chapter 6 of the White Paper refers. For the most part, I welcome what it says especially about the principles that should underlie the political balance and further nominations to the House. Broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives is about right, and proportionate creations for these Benches is in keeping with previous undertakings. However, I should like to know the significance of "presently" in paragraph 3 of Chapter 6; and "our present intentions" in paragraph 7. There is a note of reservation. The Government appear to be hedging their bets. It points to the possibility of an alternative approach. What would lead the Government to have second thoughts?
Whatever the answer, I have to say that what we have come to call the Weatherill proposals push in the opposite direction to the balancing principles set out in the White Paper. They involve a substantial and disproportionate addition to the Conservative Benches which already have the largest number of life Peers. This will aggravate the disparity between the two parties. I recognise that the proposal brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the noble Lord, Lord
858
Marsh, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon has been an attempt to ease the passage of the Bill. And no one has done more for the harmony of Parliament, if I may say so, than the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He has brought his service and skill to both Houses and we all value what he has attempted in this respect. At the same time, we have to look very closely not so much at the proposals, although they deserve scrutiny, but on how they will be implemented if that can be done.
On 20th January, when the White Paper was published, I said that the Government were a little heavy handed in saying that the Weatherill proposals would succeed only if Peers behaved themselves. On reflection my sentiment was misplaced. I have to say, painful though it may be, that the only case for the Weatherill proposals is if they smooth the passage of the Bill by promising some hereditary Peers that they may stay longer here than they had expected previously. These Benches were not involved in any way in negotiations between the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the Prime Minister, or any other Member of the Government. The news was as much a surprise to us as to the Leader of the Conservative Party, although we received it with better grace than William Hague. We are prepared to acquiesce in the deal but only if the Weatherill proposals can be put in credible form and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, succeeds in keeping his own troops in order.
Apart from unbalancing the House in its political complexion still further, what is the case for electing 14 hereditary Peers to make them available as deputy chairmen and,
"in other capacities in the scrutiny of legislation and the workings of the House"?
What are those mysterious "other workings of the House" for which they alone seem to be eligible? They will sit on the Cross-Benches but will be free to vote; and, if they are as politically unrepresentative as most hereditary Peers, they will tend to vote one way rather than another. I fail to understand the rationale for this odd arrangement for what perhaps I may be allowed to call the Weatherill 14.
Then there is a question of how those Peers—75 plus 14, if that is still the right number—are to be chosen. I know of no later authentic text than the press release of the noble Lord and his colleagues of 2nd and 3rd December. Apparently, leaving aside the 14, a block of one-tenth of hereditary Peers will be "elected among its number". But we are now led to believe that there will not be a block, but different groups in each party will elect their own; they will still be elected by hereditary Peers. Will this be laid down in statute or by a resolution of the House? If the latter, how can it override the provisions of the Bill? Why in any case should the political parties be given instructions on the conduct of their own affairs on who, among their number, should be free to stay? As regards the 14 hereditary Peers who have this particular role, they will not be elected by the hereditaries, as I understand it, but by the whole House. Why them and not the others?
I do not wish to ridicule what is a genuine attempt to solve a problem, but the situation becomes stranger and stranger. Hereditary Peers will presumably be free to stand in two elections: hoping to get on their party list

859
(first-past-the-post or STV, if we are allowed that choice); or on the list of 14. What will then happen? All that opens the prospect of long days of generous hospitality in the Bishop's Bar and the Barry Room. We may see such campaigning that this House has never seen before!
I know that the Government are trying to sort this out; and good luck to them. I hope that they can and we shall try to help them. But until we see the fine print we are suspending judgment on whether the Weatherill proposals really stand up. At the moment they are a dog's breakfast—and I say that because I do not believe that that can be an offensive expression in your Lordships' House. We shall find great difficulty in supporting them if, after all the trouble, they fail to deliver the Bill without wasted time.
When early discussions on the prospect of legislation took place, it was widely accepted that some hereditary Peers who played a particularly active role in the House—and there are many known to all of us, widely respected and held in the greatest affection—should become life Peers when the Bill received the Royal Assent. My present view is that it would be far better to return to that straightforward approach with reasonably generous numbers than to press on with the Weatherill amendment, given the present problems with it.
The White Paper is plainly written and clearly presented. It deserves to be widely read outside Parliament as well as within. It shows the complexity of the task on which we are embarked; bringing statutory change to a living institution with all its conventions, instincts and unwritten ways. It is a reminder, even to those of us long familiar with the arguments, that the task upon which we have embarked is not an easy one.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I welcome the appointment of the members of the Royal Commission and the inclusion among them of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. And not just because he sits on these Benches but for the range of experience, insight and independence that he will bring to a commission which will require all that it can have of all these, and which has, it still seems to me, very much more to do than it can do properly so as to report by the end of this year.
I appreciate the reasons which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House again adduced today for the pressure of time which the White Paper placed upon the commission. But although she mentioned some of the elements which have surrounded the debate for 100 years, she presumably chose not to mention those elements, in part set out in the White Paper and in part around in public debate, which are of much more recent origin and which are intricate, uncertain and in a large part beyond prophesying. I think of those which relate to the Government's various devolutionary strategies, to regional government and even to relationships with the institutions of the European Union.
Very many noble Lords intend to speak in this two-day debate and they will range widely over its field. Speaking from these Benches, and at this earlier stage
860
both of the debate and still more of the process upon which we are engaged, I shall limit myself to an observation about the powers and responsibilities of this House, or of any future second Chamber, before attending in a preliminary way to the points made in the White Paper about the Lords Spiritual and about the representation in your Lordships' House of other churches and of other faiths.
The White Paper notes that the House of Commons is itself committed to some modest reforms of its procedures. But whatever the outcome, and whatever the political composition of that House, and whether one party has a large majority or none has—as may be the result of moves towards proportional representation—it will surely remain crucially important that any second Chamber keeps at least powers comparable to those which your Lordships' House has at present and gains the fullest confidence in its own legitimacy to use them to the full.
To say that is not to question what the White Paper describes as,
"the supremacy of the House of Commons".
But it is to say that if another place is responsibly to exercise its supremacy, Parliament needs to keep in place and in good repair provisions which ensure that not only the government of the day but the House of Commons itself can be kept under appropriate and effective scrutiny by this House. I doubt that this House should seek, any more than should the Government at this point, to mandate the commission. Notwithstanding that, I still think it right to make the point, which I intended to make before I knew of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I hope the commission will not begin by reckoning itself bound by the first line of chapter 7, paragraph 26, which states:
"A better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers".
I turn to other issues, though not necessarily less controversial. I welcome, as the Church of England has welcomed at least since the 1970 Chadwick Report on Church and state, the points made in chapter 7., paragraph 22, about the benefits—though it also notes some of the complexities—of enabling the presence in a future second Chamber of representatives of other churches and of other faith communities. I and others on these Benches have made clear in previous debates our encouragement to the commission to explore how this can be achieved. However, we have also consistently tried to explain to your Lordships' House, and so to the Government, that we should not ourselves, the Lords Spiritual, be understood in this way.
With my colleagues, and with many others, I appreciate and welcome chapter 27, paragraph 21, of the White Paper where the Government show themselves well informed both about the range of issues, international as well as domestic, on which Bishops contribute from experience to the work of your Lordships' House and about the difficulties which in our circumstances we would have in sustaining this range of participation if our numbers were at all significantly reduced. But only rarely, and with reference to specific Church of England legislation, can we be accurately described as "representing the Church of England".

861
I hope that I have your Lordships' understanding to quote a sentence on this matter from the distinguished Roman Catholic theologian and Church historian, Professor Adrian Hastings, from his contribution to the collection of letters published by the Policy Studies Unit under the title Church, State and Religious Minorities. He writes:
"The bishops in the House of Lords cannot really be there as Anglicans but rather as representatives of spirituality, a voice of Christianity and indeed of religion wider than Christianity".
Put another way, we sit in this House as a sign of, and as a contribution to, the Christian, and then to the more broadly religious, reference of every aspect of the Queen's Government and so of the public life of this country.
On those questions, and across the whole range of its work, the Royal Commission will shortly receive a detailed submission of the Church of England. I wish the commission well and I repeat the hope that once it is at work—and I presume that it has not yet met—it will take whatever time it finds that proper consideration of its terms of reference require.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the question has been asked by noble Lords in all parts of the House, and even this afternoon, why should it be necessary to hold a debate on the subject now when we already debated it fully in October and we shall have another chance to do so on Second Reading, when the Bill has come up to us from another place. The answer that I have been able to give, without hesitation, is that the Second Reading debate in another place showed an almost universal lack of understanding of your Lordships' House, which must be put right before the Bill completes its stages there.
Just to quote one example, the right honourable Lady the Leader of another place taunted your Lordships over the fact that they did not throw out the community charge Bill. She said:
"With a few honourable exceptions, the Lords waved the poll tax on its way, rejoicing".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/99; col. 613.]
I assume that the noble Baroness the Leader of this House will by now have explained to her right honourable friend that, had your Lordships done what she wanted, they would have been committing a direct breach of the Salisbury-Addison convention for the first and only time in 50 years.
Another facet throughout the debate was to dismiss as a cliché the saying that, while the hereditary content is indefensible in theory, it has always worked in practice. If the party opposite is determined not to recognise the fact that the existing House works rather well, and at least make some effort to understand why, how on earth will it be capable of deciding what to put in its place?
It is worth noting at this point that this major constitutional Bill has been allowed to go through all its days in another place so far with barely a mention in even the broadsheet press.
862
The question, to which we have never yet had a satisfactory answer, must be asked once again. Does the party opposite really believe, against all informed opinion, against successive polls, that it is more likely to achieve the best possible alternative second chamber if it is done in this piecemeal fashion; or is it just that its right honourable friends cannot wait that long for the prospect of spilling parliamentary blood on the floor? Is it really wise to get rid of the people who are best qualified by long-term experience to know about the working of this House so long before the final decision as to its future shape is to take place?
The noble Baroness said last Thursday, when asked why no hereditary Peer had been invited to serve on the Royal Commission, as against four life Peers and one right reverend Prelate, that,
"as it is the purpose of this Bill that is passing through another place this time to exclude the hereditary peerage from being Members of Parliament I do not believe that it would be logical to invite them to take part in considering the longer-term position of the Second House".—[Official Report, 11/2/99; col. 324.]
Does that really make sense or could there be some other reason, as yet to be divulged, as to why this decision was made?
It is at least a concession—and I must welcome it rather more than did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—of some sort that the collective experience of hereditary Peers is now to be represented by 91 of our number when we leave. But what is so magic about the number 91? A researcher of mine has come up with a possible answer: 91 is the maximum number of passengers allowed to be carried on the latest model of a London bus-43 upstairs, 28 downstairs and 20 standing. Your Lordships may laugh but it is scarcely less far-fetched than the real answer. It was originally intended that the nine remaining hereditary Peers of first creation were to make up the round 100. In all previous attempts at reform, and notably the 1968 reform, hereditary Peers of first creation rightly ranked with and, indeed, above life Peers under the group name of "created Peers" and not with Peers by descent.
I find it totally unacceptable, particularly with regard to the late Lord Stockton, the late Lord Tonypandy, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw and my noble friend Lord Cranborne, advanced like his grandfather before him in one of his father's titles, that what had been given as a signal honour has been turned by Her Majesty's Government into a slur and their offer to throw in a life peerage to make up the balance does not make it better; it makes it worse.
More serious still is the fact that we have been told by the Leaders of both Houses that this concession will only be honoured if your Lordships enable reform to proceed by consent. When questioned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House refused to elucidate further. Perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip could do so at the end of the debate. If we send a number of amendments back to another place, which we are certainly entitled to do because it is a matter which affects us really rather closely, would that be proceeding by consent? What if we sent an amendment back a second time; or even if we insisted on one, as is our constitutional right, and on occasion our constitutional

863
duty to do? How will she interpret that? If this rather nebulous threat hanging over us amounts to something less than contempt of Parliament, I would be grateful if someone would tell me why.
In previous debates about this two-stage reform, I have been far more concerned about the interim House on the grounds that I did not believe that the second phase would ever arrive or, if it did, that it would never get through another place. I am far more concerned now that we might indeed get a second stage, but a bad second stage. The terms of reference, which have been mentioned already, of the Royal Commission start quite reasonably with the words:
"Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber"
So long as another place retains its exclusive powers over Finance Bills and Bills of Supply, many of which go back not only to 1911 but to 100 years before that, its pre-eminence may never need to be in doubt. But to weaken the powers of the new second chamber—which, in spite of what the noble Baroness said, the White Paper rather hints at—after they have eliminated the only part of its composition that they cannot accept, seems to me to be dangerous in the extreme. I therefore support wholeheartedly the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
If 30 years on the Front Bench has taught me one thing about the difference between the Houses, it is that Members of another place seem to exist in a sort of air-tight time capsule, bounded by either extremity of the single parliamentary term in which they find themselves. Nothing that happens before the start of that term has any relevance and, more dangerous still, consequences, however direct, that might happen after the following general election are not worth bothering about. On the other hand, Members of your Lordships' House think in a straight, unbroken line.
Generations of Labour oppositions have been only too happy to use the independence of your Lordships to inflict defeats on Conservative governments. This happened between 15 and 25 times a year throughout my time as Chief Whip. All right, in times of a Labour government, there might have been rather more defeats but a higher proportion of those are usually reversed in another place, so the net result on the Acts as they appear on the statute book is about the same. Of course, these are only a fraction of the number of amendments which can consequently be won by argument on the Floor of the House. Yet to read the debates on this Bill in another place, you would think that none of that had ever happened at all.
I remember my noble friend the former Prime Minister once asking me why I did not arrange to modernise the procedures of your Lordships' House so as to get her business through more easily. "I cannot do that, Prime Minister', I said. "Why not?" "Because next time there is a Labour government, we are going to need the very procedures that you are complaining about". I thought I was going to be taken out and shot forthwith for the mere suggestion that there might be another Labour government ever again.
864
And here we go again. Owing to the impetuosity of the party opposite, the connivance of the Liberal Democrats and, I have to add, to a certain extent, the inertia of my own party, we seem to be drifting inexorably towards the point where we could be left for all time with a second chamber tailor-made for the temporary convenience of just this one Administration, which happens to possess a crushing majority in another place.
I must ask the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms, who does not himself suffer from such limitations to his vision, how he thinks that he will cope with the legislation of a right-wing Conservative government of the future if he has allowed this House to be emasculated by his right honourable friends in the meantime?
It is being said of hereditary Peers—although the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was a little kinder than that—that although we may talk very big, all we are trying do in reality is to preserve our own seats in this House. I am not going to pretend that it will not be an enormous wrench to leave your Lordships' House, and after 50 years it would be strange if it were not. But I assure your Lordships that that wrench will diminish into insignificance compared with the fear that blindness and bigotry will have caused us to do so without our having any assurance that we shall be leaving behind the best possible alternative in our place.
I beg Her Majesty's Government even now to give very serious consideration to some of these things, lest the prophesy of G. K. Chesterton in his poem "The Secret People" should at last come to pass:
"We only know the last sad squires
Ride slowly towards the sea
And a new people takes the land
And still it is not we
They have given us into the hand
Of new unhappy Lords
Lords without anger and honour
Who dare not carry their swords
They fight by shuffling papers
They have bright dead alien eyes
And they look at our labour and laughter
As a tired man looks at flies
And the load of their loveless pity
Is worse than the ancient wrongs
Their doors are shut in the evening
And they know no songs".
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I share the view of my noble friend Lord Denham that this is an extremely important debate. It is a matter of the constitution and its importance is only equalled by the debates we have had either on decisions to join the European Union or some of the important constitutional Acts which followed from that original decision.
Of course it affects much more than the House of Lords. It affects the relationship of the House of Lords with the House of Commons; it affects the balance between the Executive and the legislature; and ultimately it affects the relations between the legislature and the electorate and the Executive with the electorate.

865
Each part of the constitution is interdependent and we cannot alter one part of it without it affecting all the other parts.
Constitutional changes are unlike other political changes. They should be agreed by all party agreements and are intended to last a long time. The Royal Commission on the House of Lords cannot be compared, as I suggest the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, did when answering a Question the other day, with the solution of the long-term care of the elderly. The issues are of an entirely different order of magnitude. Nor did I follow the argument of the noble Baroness this afternoon about the other Bills before the House. Of course the Bills on the health service, the debates on the homeless, pollution or the environment matter; but they are issues which to a large extent can be altered by one Parliament or another; they can be altered within the lifetime of a Parliament. Matters of the constitution, like the future of your Lordships' House, are quite different.
What worries me and many of my noble friends is whether the Government actually take this matter seriously. There are times, when listening to the speeches and reading the White Paper—here I share the view of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that some of it is inaccurate and much of it repetitive—when one feels that this is not a serious document. Indeed, I have the feeling that the Government were pushed into producing this White Paper; pushed into producing this debate and pushed into producing the Royal Commission, no doubt because the Conservative Party set up the valuable commission under my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The first six chapters of the White Paper are almost entirely devoted to stating that hereditary Peers must lose their right to sit and vote in the House. They are devoted almost entirely to the transition of the House. Let us look at the arguments adduced for this. It starts, in the introduction, with the comments of the Prime Minister. He refers to:
"hereditary peers with no democratic legitimacy".
The truth is that life Peers are just as undemocratic. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and myself are both here as a result of political patronage. A House composed only of life Peers would have no more democratic legitimacy than the present House. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. It will not "enhance Britain's democracy" as stated in chapter 2, paragraph 3, to move to an all-appointed House. It is no use protesting again, as has been done on many occasions, that there is to be an appointments commission. That commission will be indirectly appointed by the Prime Minister and the number of appointments it may make will be determined by him. It is unlikely to make the House more democratic, whatever else it may or may not achieve.
Then we are told that referendums,
"have shown a clear appetite for change"—
for constitutional change, for modernisation. Yet we know that the referendum in Wales to establish an Assembly was carried by less than 1 per cent. of the population—some 6,000 votes. And in the referendum
866
on London only 24 per cent. of the people voted. That is hardly an overwhelming majority in either case, and not much of an appetite.
Then, over the weekend, we had the unbelievable spectacle on our television screens and read extensively in the newspapers about the extraordinary events over the election of a new leader for the Welsh Assembly. To the outsider New Labour's idea of a democracy, let alone devolution or devolved powers to any of these organisations, is hardly open, transparent or democratic; indeed, some might say that it comes dangerously close to a "fix" by the Government.
That compares with the real concerns of many people that the Government, under the guise of modernising Parliament, are intent on down-grading the House of Commons. Who would have believed that they would enjoy a half-term holiday at a time when extremely serious events are taking place in the world? After all, British troops may be sent to Kosovo and where will the MPs be? Back at home, having a holiday. The Government appear to be fixing those who will be responsible for devolved institutions, emasculating the House of Lords and elevating the Executive. Referendums are not a substitution for consideration and debate.
The Government's proposals for an interim House of Lords do not have the support of a single, serious, outside observer. As far as I can see, there is no suggestion in the White Paper that the present House of Lords is doing a bad or ineffective job; it says that it is doing an effective job with the wrong people. Far from being,
"unresponsive to political and social change"—
chapter 2, paragraph 16—the House of Lords has consistently sought, by amendments, to improve legislation. That has been accepted by another place. Major Bills have been virtually re-written in this House and accepted in another place. It has done that successfully and serious commentators agree that it has done a valuable job.
It is only when we come to chapters 7 and 8 that we touch on the Royal Commission itself. In the short time left I should like to make only three short comments. First, I very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It would be absurd to go through all this and end up with a House of Lords which was weaker than the present one. If it has been criticised, it has been criticised for being too weak or not exercising its powers sufficiently. At least it ought to be able to exercise all those powers in any future House without worry. To weaken it would be absurd. It is important that the House of Lords, in a reformed state, along with the House of Commons should keep intact for the future its constitutional power to check the Executive. There are already far too many who believe that the Executive, in the form of the Government of today, is far too powerful and that it is Parliament that needs to be strengthened, not the Executive.
I end where I began. Any change in your Lordships' House affects all the other parts of the Government and our constitution. It is important that we take this matter seriously; that we take no steps that weaken

867
Parliament—one of the great traditions which has stood this country in good stead over hundreds of years and which has been the envy of foreign countries; and that it should not be destroyed without proper care, consideration and argument.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—all of us are extremely fond of her—she made the point that there is no difference, from the point of view of democracy, in the creation of life Peers and hereditary Peers. Does she really wish to make the point that there is the same democracy when the head of a democratically-elected Government makes an appointment and, from her point of view, when hereditary Peers are created by the Almighty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think, perhaps, that I made the point that we are all created by the Almighty, hereditary and life Peers. However, I had not realised that we were in for a theological argument. I should be delighted to have one. The point I made, and I stand by it, is that everyone in your Lordships House, with the notable exceptions of the right reverend Prelates, is here either by heredity or political patronage. Neither group are democrats; none of us has been elected.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, when I spoke in the two-day debate on the reform of your Lordships' House, I said that the United Kingdom owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the contributions made to national and international life by the hereditary aristocracy of this country over many years and generations. Nevertheless, knowing of the manifesto commitment of the elected government of the day, I had to conclude reluctantly that the Bill before another place to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House was one which I could not, in all conscience, oppose.
However, having said that, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, I believe that in the interim House it is crucial to the continuing validity and functioning of this House that the "Weatherill amendment", or something very like it, must be accepted to retain a significant cadre of hereditary Peers in that body.
I turn to stage two of the reform, a matter with which the Royal Commission is expected to deal. The commission has been confronted with an extremely demanding and difficult task and a very short timetable. I am pleased to learn that following the commission's report, a joint committee of the two Houses will be established to recommend means by which the implementation of the commission's recommendations is to be introduced.
In the commission's report, we will be faced with three possible options for the long-term future of this House, one of which is a wholly-elected chamber. I find it remarkable that so many people, whose views I normally respect, have come out strongly in favour of such a chamber. Can it be conceived how introducing a second other chamber, wholly elected, could be established without removing significant powers from
868
another place? I believe that the potential for constitutional upheaval by introducing an elected chamber is absolutely unacceptable. For that reason, it is one which I would wholly reject.
Nevertheless, I wholly accept the strictures upon the idea of a wholly-appointed chamber, set out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It has its attractions, but it could lack validity and constitutional propriety in the longer term. For that reason alone, I much prefer the idea of a hybrid chamber, say, two-thirds appointed, and one-third indirectly elected. I confess to being attracted very much to the idea that the indirectly-elected members might be partly elected on a regional basis but that others might be elected! by professional and other occupational groups, not necessarily representative but brought about in such a way.
Having mentioned my reasons for rejecting an elected chamber, I have said on many occasions that the expertise in this House is in many ways absolutely exceptional. In my 10 years of experience I have heard many outstanding contributions from all parts of the House and from all the life Peers. I cannot conceive that more than a tiny percentage of the existing life Peers would ever have dreamt of standing for election to a directly-elected chamber.
My final remarks will deal with a sensitive issue. Being in my 77th year, I shall, without question, be accused of self-interest. I refer to the problem of ageism. The White Paper does not say in terms that a retirement age will be imposed by the Royal Commission but the strong hints—not only in the White Paper, but more particularly in the public press—suggest that a retirement age is likely to be introduced. At a time when consultants in the National Health Service retire al 65 and cannot even hold honorary contracts beyond 70; when heads of houses in Oxford and bishops retire at 70 and Law Lords are no longer able to sit beyond the age of 75, that sounds absolutely logical. Many problems are associated with ageing. As one of my colleagues said,
"I've come to terms with my bifocals,
To my dentures I'm resigned,
I can live with my arthritis
But, by God, I miss my mind".
The validity of that was brought home to me a few months ago. A colleague in Oxford said that he wanted to see me about an extremely sensitive matter. He came, and I said, "What do you want to talk about?" He said, "It's very sensitive. I am one of the medical obituaries editors for The Times. I've been asked to get a copy of your curriculum vitae."I said, "Do you happen to know something that I don't?".
As we get older, we all suffer from a difficulty in remembering names, quite often those of our close friends and noble friends on these Benches. This is known, happily, as benign senescent forgetfulness. Gladly, it leaves intellect, judgment and wisdom unimpaired. I have been greatly struck by the quality of the contributions made in your Lordships' House by many Peers on all sides in their ninth and tenth decades. They have demonstrated a vast range of accumulated experience and wisdom. To discard that expertise

869
would, in my view, impoverish and even, in some respects, emasculate the House. I have calculated that if a retirement age of 75 were to be introduced, two-thirds of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology would disappear within the course of the next two years.
Many years ago William Cowper said:
"Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one,
Have oft times no connection, Knowledge dwells,
In heads replete with thoughts of other men;
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.
Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more".
I believe that the powers of this House are about right. I should hate to see any reduction. This is an effective revising Chamber. To cast aside the repository of sagacity and experience now so evident in the debates in your Lordships' House would, in my view at least, imperil its future as an effective revising Chamber.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am tempted to start by saying that I know of one noble Lord in this House who has done his best to see that there is a mistake in his obituary in one of our national papers. He has left a letter to be sent to the editor the day after his obituary appears saying, "Sir, I may be dead, but …"
I share the view that this is an important debate and recognise that large numbers of your Lordships wish to participate. Therefore, I shall he brief.
I am deeply honoured to have been asked to become the chairman of the Royal Commission examining the future of this House. Our task is hugely important and the timetable very tight, but it is a task to which I am much looking forward.
I start from this position. I have the greatest respect for the contribution that this House has made to the life of this nation over hundreds of years. I am conscious of the service given by your Lordships, by whatever route we have arrived here. The task of the Royal Commission in the new circumstances of today is to propose a way forward, taking what is good in the present arrangements and to make suggestions for its future.
I am sure that your Lordships will understand why it would be inappropriate for me to make any substantive comment on the issues raised in the White Paper or, indeed, on today's excellent and very useful debate, to which I shall listen carefully and read any speeches that I might miss.
However, I should like to make some more general comments, the first of which is to say how delighted I am to have as colleagues in the task ahead several distinguished members of your Lordships House: first, the right reverent Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Oxford; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, who is an old colleague of mine from the Press Complaints Commission, and of course, the noble Lord, Lord Butler and my noble friend Lord Hurd, both of whom I have worked with over many years and on many issues.
870
We shall also benefit from the wise counsel of Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth, a friend of many of us and a friend of this House which he served with distinction for many years, particularly as Clerk of the Parliaments. I got to know him well when I had the honour to lead your Lordships' House.
I am also extremely pleased that the other members of the commission are equally distinguished figures in their own walks of life. I am sure that all of your Lordships can draw considerable reassurance from that. Together the members of the Royal Commission combine experience and wisdom with a wide range of perspectives on the difficult issues with which we shall need to grapple.
Our first formal meeting will take place on 1st March. Obviously, I do not want to pre-empt the collective decisions that we shall need to take then about the way forward. However, I should like to emphasise three points which, again, I hope that your Lordships will find reassuring.
First, I well understand the anxiety of those concerned to ensure that the later stages of proposed reform will follow quickly on from those set out in the House of Lords Bill. Although we have a precise and challenging timetable, I shall do my utmost to ensure that we play our full part in ensuring that that happens.
Secondly, I should like again to set on the record, as I first did during the Statement on the publication of the Government's White Paper, that I believe the commission's terms of reference to be sufficiently wide to enable us to deal comprehensively with all the issues relating to the role, function and composition of this House.
I also believe that the commission will want to seek the widest possible range of views on these matters, both in written and oral evidence, as well as in public hearings. Of course, it is for the commission to decide whether to take evidence in private or in public. However, I want to be as open and as forthcoming as possible. I expect the commission's work to take place in the context of a vigorous public debate.
Many of your Lordships have already taken the opportunity to make your views clear in this House and to me personally. We shall, of course, take all views into account. I stress that it would he enormously helpful if those of your Lordships with particular or deeply held views would submit formal evidence to the commission.
Finally, I know that a number of your Lordships have expressed concern about the concept of "modernising" the House of Lords. I am one of those who believes that modernising anything for the sake of it is a pointless activity, but I make this point: we are currently experiencing a more profound set of constitutional changes than at any time since the start of this century—and perhaps even more fundamental than that. All of those changes will impact on this House. One of the challenges facing the Royal Commission is to find a way for this House to play a distinct and significant role, complementary to that of the other place, within the new constitutional arrangements. This is an exciting

871
opportunity and it will not come again. That is why I welcome the Government's White Paper and why I believe that your Lordships should too.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, it is a courtesy of both Houses of Parliament that speakers sit through the speech following their own. Therefore, it is my great good fortune that the chairman of the Royal Commission will have to listen to my views and that that will save me the trouble of explaining them to him!
I have deliberately avoided speaking in your Lordships' House on the subject of Lords reform until now. I had some experience of reforms in another place and have been flattered by having my name attached to those reforms. However, I felt that I should wait until now before trying to express opinions about how your Lordships' House might be reformed.
As a creature of the House of Commons, I have been hugely struck in the almost two years since I became a Member of this House by the better informed and certainly better mannered work of this place. It is sometimes not easy to get used to that after 33 years in the other place.
However, 1 am less impressed by the way in which the Government have been thinking out their revisions to our constitution and our Parliament, which seem to have cascaded upon us during the past 18 months. I really cannot understand why the Royal Commission could not have been set up 18 months ago. We could then all have had a much better understanding of the possibilities of phase two. Frankly, and with great respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, it is no good her complaining about the number of hours that this House is spending discussing reform. The fact that your Lordships want to spend so much time discussing it is a function of the uncertainty about the future, and must be quite understandable.
The noble Baroness spoke of the need for consensus. I resented the way in which the Government made fundamental changes in another place, particularly with regard to Prime Minister's Question Time. There was no consensus there. I ask the noble Baroness to consider the reforms in another place, which, as I have said, occasionally bear my name. They were proposed in 1992, but until we achieved consensus across the House of Commons the government of the day did not implement them. They could have done so perfectly easily, but felt that there had to be consensus.
My conclusion is that, once the hereditary Peers have left your Lordships' House, this House is destined to become infinitely more political, more party political and more combative. So many experienced colleagues, who have spent all their lives in either another place or in this House, firmly believe that that will happen. I am certain that it will. I shall return to that point later.
Others speak about the need for an age limit. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on that point. Frankly, I think that we would be mad to deprive your Lordships' House of the contributions from Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and
872
Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who are all both regular attenders of your Lordships' House and fascinating contributors on many occasions. We would be crazy to get rid of such contributions.
In my view—I am afraid that this will be controversial—we would be a good deal wiser to question whether, in the calculations about party strengths and numbers in the future, we should take account of those life Peers who rarely attend your. Lordships' House. I have been trying to do some research into this and I have calculated that of those life Peers who were eligible to attend for the whole of the first Session of this Parliament, about 70—that is, about one in seven—attended on fewer than 10 per cent. of the Sitting days. We understand, of course, that many of them may not be well or may be of an age when one should not be surprised by infrequent attendance. I hope that the Royal Commission will give some thought to the possibility of making arrangements to balance out party membership in the way in which the Government require, but, while doing so, perhaps we could consider excluding from party numbers some of those rare attenders and allowing them to speak but not to vote. I believe that very many of them have great wisdom which greatly enhances the reputation of your Lordships' House.
I return to the matter of party numbers. I hope that I shall be forgiven because I am the third former Chief Whip to speak and I hope that I am not seen to be making a plea from the "Chief Whips' Mafia". My old friend and opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, always used to tell me that one must always remember that Parliament (in both Houses) works only because of the unwritten understanding that the government of the day must be allowed to get their business. That is a fundamental facet of our life in this building. If it were not, frankly, the whole business would collapse. If we are to become more party political—and I am convinced that we shall be—as I said earlier, it is essential that we do not make it totally impossible for the government of the day to get their business through in your Lordships' House.
In Chapter 6 of the White Paper, the Government say that,
"no political party should have a majority in the House of Lords".
Well, that is fair enough. However, it also says that,
"we presently …"—
and I emphasise the word "presently"—
"seek only broad parity of numbers with the main Opposition party".
After stage two, quite frankly I do not believe that that will be enough in a much more highly charged political atmosphere. I realise that what I am about to say may be unpopular on my own side, but in a new, more political House I think that the government party ought to have parity with all the other national opposition parties. The ever-present danger of the strictures of the Cross Benches have, to my certain knowledge—and I can remember some very tart conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in the years gone by, and he will remember them too—provided a nightmare for

873
Chief Whips of both parties in your Lordships' House. Given that the government party has parity with the other main opposition parties, not a majority over them, and bearing in mind the Cross-Benches, that will be quite enough for any Chief Whip to have to contend with.
To achieve that parity which the Government speak of in the White Paper will mean an adjustment of numbers after each change of government in order to get to that level of parity. It is quite impossible to expect the whole of the electorate to go and vote again immediately after a general election to top up the Members. Therefore, if we are to have an elected element in your Lordships' House, that is the time to do it, through indirect elections.
However, in achieving the parity which the Government want, we must be careful that we do not find ourselves in a period of frequent changes of government becoming a bigger and bigger House, which is totally unmanageable. When I chaired the Select Committee in another place on this, to my infinite regret I was not allowed to address the matter of the number of Members there. I know how much I would have been delighted to propose a very large reduction. In that context, I am alarmed at the proposal to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred; namely, to allow 91 hereditary Peers to stay on. My name did appear in a letter to The Times, along with the names of my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Baker of Dorking, which tried to make the point that the proposal is not as clever as it has been made out to be by some of our colleagues. However, time prevents me from explaining that at length.
If, as I expect, the Government insist on topping up their numbers in the transitional House to make up for the deficit caused by the appointment of the 91 temporary hereditary Peers, it is essential that those individuals, too, ought to disappear when the temporary hereditary Peers disappear. Otherwise, we shall be left at the end of the transition with a whole disparity which will have to be corrected all over again. I have said enough; indeed, I have exceeded my time. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the House for listening to me with such patience.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, unaccustomed as I am to such amazing prominence in the list of speakers, I shall have to rewrite most of my speech which was all about bedtime and breakfast. I shall still try to make my speech as brief as possible. There are just two points that I should like to make. The first is about heredity. The idea of hereditary Peers has been dismissed as indefensible by every speaker in the other place. I did not listen to their debates, but I have read both of the relevant Hansard reports. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I am sure, late tomorrow night, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I shall defend it.
Every single Member of the other place, indeed all of us here—indeed, everyone in the whole world—is hereditary. We owe much of what we are to our own
874
dear parents from whom we have inherited much. We have, as my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant will be able to tell noble Lords with more authenticity than I, inherited many genes from stray ancestors down the road of time. There has been much talk of hereditary plumbers. Indeed, I do not see why not. Children are brought up in houses where their parents do one thing or another, the parents talk of their interests and of their professions; some of it somewhere must rub off.
We all bring up our children to be good, useful citizens of the world. We want them to be kinder, nicer, cleverer and more successful than we are ourselves. Of all my children's reports, the ones I most cherished were those which said they were kind, thoughtful and considerate of other people. I therefore see nothing to be ashamed of in being an hereditary Peer. It is something marvellous which one has inherited and, as a result, it is one's duty, while one has it, to use this privilege to help others. I also do not believe that to describe hereditary Peers in the ways in which they have been described during the past year is either true or kind; or, indeed, necessary. Personally, considering the difficulties that we have had with our central heating over the past few weeks, I think it would have been much more useful to have been born an hereditary plumber.
This House of your Lordships is a wonderful place. I say that not only because the gold, the crimson, the amazing Pugin features, lions and unicorns and angels are all part of the glorious background; not only because of the marvellous people who actually run it, the Clerks, Black Rod and the Doorkeepers, the refreshment staff and the police, together with all the ladies who keep it so gleaming and polished, many of whom are our dear friends—if I started mentioning names it would indeed be breakfast-time before I had finished—and not only because on whichever Benches we sit, whatever views we represent, we are all a team, dedicated to improving legislation and to defending the interests of the people, though we may not always agree on the best way to do this. All of your Lordships are so kind. I remember when I first came the late Lord Home of the Hirsel sat and had tea with me, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, told me fascinating stories of his early days in the other place, the late dear Lord Elwyn-Jones talked of the Nazi trials after the war and the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby talked of life in the trenches in the First World War. I even had the reciprocal pleasure of giving tea to Lady Callaghan while her noble kinsman sat through a long list of speakers after he had spoken.
Whether you were a life Peer or an hereditary Peer, whether you were a duke or a baron, a former prime minister or someone very insignificant like me; indeed, whatever Benches you sat on, you were all friends and you were all working together. It was like a Victorian children's story which my grandmother used to read to me called The Angel of Love, in which every person is a house and his eyes are windows out of which looks the little angel of love. Of course there had to be drama in it, and there was. Rosie, the middle sister who was six, was playing one night with the gold sovereign that her grandmother had given her. It fell between a crack

875
in the floorboards and was lost. So she stole her little sister's, and lied about it. All the servants were accused of theft and she spent it all on sweets for herself. Of course, Rosie's poor Angel of Love had a terrible time of it because she had let in spite, envy, jealousy and lying, and even anger—each one let in something else and they drove the poor angel out.
In the past year something very similar has been happening in your Lordships' House, with the bleak and bald announcement that all hereditary Peers are to be got rid of. We have all worked together, as best we could, some of course more successfully than others, and we have all tried. Many of us have become very unsettled, and very unhappy. And all that will be achieved at the end of the day will be something possibly not so good, nor so efficient, and certainly more expensive to the taxpayer.
I would like to tell you what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip quoted from an American judge, in April 1995. He said,
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding".
I think that is a very fair description of what has been proposed for your Lordships' House. Rosie's story, however, ended happily, your Lordships will be glad to hear. She took her younger sister Babs out to find a carpenter, for some reason in a snowstorm, and Babs caught pneumonia, and very nearly died, but Rosie was terribly sorry and repentant. She prayed to God and confessed to everyone what she had really done, so Babs got better, the sovereign was found and the Angel of Love came back into Rosie's eyes again.
There is one other very short point I would make. There has also, regrettably, been much talk of an age limit. In this House, we have no age discrimination, no ageism, we revere and admire the wisdom, brilliance and wit of your Lordships who have reached the mature age of 90, and even of the younger 80 year-olds. Perhaps one should bow to the idol of modernity, and fix an age limit, and I would suggest as a temporary measure, 105—at least until some of your Lordships reach that age, when we might have to make the upper limit a little more.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and I hope to echo some of her sentiments during the course of my remarks. I begin by taking issue with the title of the White Paper. It is referred to as Reforming the House of Lords. From what I see in the contents of the White Paper there is more of an intention to replace than to reform. What appears to be the preferred solution of the Government—at least that is my interpretation of pages 40, 41, 49 and 50—is that they want an altogether different Chamber, a new second Chamber with fewer powers and a changed composition. Even the Life Peers are only to be Peers for life, apparently, for the time being. In the process they will alter fundamentally the purpose and powers of Parliament as a whole.
876
I hope very much that the Royal Commission will take into account the impact on Parliament as a whole during the course of its deliberations. It is, if I am fair in my summary, the Government's declared aim to modernise our institutions in such ways as will enable them more accurately to reflect current realities. I have no grounds for protesting about that but I suspect that they have another prize in mind. They have nothing less as their ultimate objective than the diminution of Parliament itself and the concentration of true power in the hands of the Government.
I am a Conservative with both a large and a small "C". I am not against change per se but I am distrustful of changes which are pushed through perhaps because they conform comfortably to some populist slogan and which are promoted with ill-concealed contempt for any opposing point of view. Of course one must always be ready to change and adapt. If one does not do so, as an institution this Chamber will soon lose popular sympathy and support. Ideally such change should be a gradual, evolutionary process preceded by much thought and accompanied by much debate. That is the right way to proceed, in harmony with our national character and contributing greatly to the relative stability of political life. Such an approach should influence any proposals for change in our great national institutions such as Parliament. The White Paper acknowledges this at page 46 where it states,
"Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom has normally been gradual and incremental. This has contributed to the basic stability of the United Kingdom's system".
Yet, in embarking upon a series of constitutional changes which are anything but "gradual and incremental", the Government appear to be more eager to undermine than to underpin the existing structure. In his foreword to the White Paper the Prime Minister salutes, as examples of progress and modernisation, what he calls the new "representative arrangements" for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the new structures for the regions of England; and a new scheme for the government of London. Taken together with the plans for this House, they are being hailed as a comprehensive and radical programme of reform. I wonder whether that is the whole picture. Is that really what this upheaval is all about?
I have to confess that my suspicions are heightened by the ministerial glee with which the Government set about denigrating hereditary Peers. They found in them an easy target, it is true, because they were not going to resist the changes proposed. I suspect they set about their task all the more robustly in the terms of the Bill before Parliament in the other place now because they did not want the contribution of experienced hereditary Peers to be brought to bear upon the consideration of what should take the place of the present House. Hereditary Peers have in the main served long hours in this place and have demonstrated a tradition of service and a sense of responsibility. Their departure will be a great loss not only to Parliament but also to discerning people throughout this kingdom who have a high regard for their independence and judgment. This is reflected in the White Paper at page 40 which states:

877
"the Lords, conscious of their absence of a specific mandate, their political imbalance and the existence of inheritance as one of the qualifications for membership, have restrained themselves … going further than the actual legislative constraints on their powers".
I predict that the new members of the new second Chamber will not be inclined to feel so constrained. They will not have those same traditions bred into them. They will have an altogether different approach and one which is being actively encouraged by the Government to represent special interest groups, to pursue specific objectives and not to think about the position of Parliament as a whole and the constitution of this country. I believe that in this way the Government will find that this House will become a forum for intensive lobbying. There will be push and pressure such as they have not known it so far. That will lead inevitably to conflict with the Commons.
That is perhaps why they are already trailering the reduction in powers as envisaged in paragraphs 25 and 26 on pages 40 and 41. We can now see what kind of picture is unfolding. They are bringing this out gently, line by line, colour by colour, until gradually we see the whole portrayal before us, but they are not telling us openly, in advance, what it is that they are about. Apparently they see the new second Chamber as becoming the hub of a representative institutional network. Frankly I confess that I dislike the prospect of an institutional representative network. It will be a mishmash of assemblies, committees and debating chambers—this House and the other place being just a part of it all. It does not need much imagination to see who will be the beneficiaries of all this. It will be Ministers—Ministers who will become less and less accountable; who because of the proliferation of representative bodies will be able to avoid scrutiny. Executive accountability will be fragmented. Is this what it is really all about?
The Prime Minister—who appears to be Parliament-shy and anything but media-shy—who resents opposition and criticism and is ready to resort to the block vote if it suits him, now seems intent on creating a series of neutered institutions to replace the present Parliament at Westminster. The Government are going completely in the wrong direction. They should be strengthening Parliament, adding to its power. A strong Parliament makes for a strong government; a strong and accountable government is good for Britain. That, not this wobbly jelly fantasy, is what Britain must have as we enter the 21st century.
5.20 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, when I first sat in your Lordships' House there was only one other woman Peer sitting with me on the Cross-Benches, my noble friend the late Lady Swanborough. I inherited her very nice coathanger, which I still use and treasure. There has been a great sea change; not only have women Peers become more numerous but Cross-Benchers have more than trebled in number. I shall refer to this change later.
I voted, with others, for a constructive reform of the House of Lords, which was quashed in the other place by extremists of the left and right. We are now
878
considering the abolition of most of the hereditary Peers and the question of the composition of the House. Those of us who have always believed that there is need for the reform of this House have been denied the opportunity to discuss its powers, which is a far more important question.
As I understand it, it has long been believed that the hereditary Peers scotched the last attempt at reform. This I regard as incorrect. I find unacceptable the abrupt dismissal of hereditary Peers, many of whom would support a constructive reform. I see no reason for a transitional House of Lords until its future is determined by consensus. I find extraordinary illogicalities in the White Paper.
The change to which I refer has been wholly spontaneous. The White Paper seeks to make the composition of the House completely rigid. Given the fluctuations of public opinion, any attempt to enforce any rigidity is bound to break down. Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen if a Peer or Peers wishes to cross the floor and so change the balance? This they can do at present, and have done so. Peers are subject to the universal law of death—whether hereditary or life Peers of any party or none—which no legislation can repeal. Some 50 Peers, whether hereditary or life, have their peerages extinguished by death every year. How will an independent appointments committee be able to recommend, as the White Paper suggests, non-political appointments and vet all nominations to sit in the House of Lords? Can the Minister say whether I am correct in thinking that non-political appointees will sit on the Cross-Benches?
The terms of reference of the Royal Commission, as set out in Chapter 22, paragraph 23, read very well, but they do not really disclose the Government's intentions. I wonder what they may be. Royal Commissions have been ignored within my memory; can the Minister say why this Royal Commission may not be ignored? If it is, what happens then?
Are future Peers—or whatever they may be called—to be paid, as is the case with Members in the other place? To what extent will they be merely place men? Without remuneration they may not be eager to serve, and may not be financially able to do so. I find some difficulties in giving unreserved support to the White Paper.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have ever fully appreciated the strength of feeling among your Lordships with regard to the reform of the House of Lords. That strength of feeling is clearly demonstrated by the number of noble Lords who have already spoken or intend to do so, and by the fact that the Government have had to extend the time of the debate to two days.
In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made much of the Labour Party manifesto commitment to abolish the speaking and voting rights of hereditary Peers. It is perhaps interesting to reflect that a recent survey suggests that no more than, I think, 2 per cent. of the population understood, accepted, or

879
even agreed with that undertaking. I am not quite sure therefore how the commitment can be declared in such equivocal terms by the noble Baroness.
This is an important debate. The Government cannot expect us to allow 700 years of history and tradition to be swept away without so much as a by your leave. After all Simon de Montfort's Parliament—the so-called mother of Parliaments—was largely a House of Lords and not a House of Commons.
I have had the privilege of serving in your Lordships' House for more than 35 years; 13 of those years were spent on the Front Bench, two in opposition and 11 in government. I make no claim to be wiser or cleverer than anyone else but, like many of your Lordships, I speak from a position of some experience in this House—of its roles, its customs, its strengths and its weaknesses. I believe that we are a unique House and that we have been able to retain our independence from both the government of the day and the House of Commons and serve as an effective revising Chamber within our parliamentary system.
As a Minister—like many others who have served in Parliament—I soon learnt that it was very unwise to take your Lordships' House for granted. That applies equally to both Conservative and Labour administrations. It will come as no surprise that I have found to my cost when speaking from the government Dispatch Box that I have not always been able to persuade your Lordships of the merits of my proposals or to resist other proposals put forward.
The Government make great play about the so-called in-built Conservative majority among hereditary Peers. Indeed, we know how annoyed the Government are when they have suffered occasional defeats in this House at the hands of combined numbers of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, their own Members and Cross-Benchers. Of course, they were very swift to praise your Lordships when previous Conservative administrations suffered defeat in this House, as they quite often did.
The truth is that any government who enjoy a large majority in the House of Commons are safe in the knowledge that they can force any controversial legislation through that House, come what may. In the end it must be the view of the House of Commons which prevails, as it always can and should under the provisions of the Parliament Act and the Salisbury-Addison convention, to which my noble friend Lord Denham referred. Without a doubt, the hereditary principle has provided Parliament with an independent, free-thinking and unprejudiced group of people. It is that independence which is, in my view, the most important characteristic of your Lordships' House—independence from the House of Commons, independence from the Government, and independence from any particular sectional view.
Whether an individual Peer decides to take a party Whip or join the Cross Benches is a decision reached by that individual Peer. Even then, hereditary Peers can still—and often do—ignore the voting instructions of the party machine, free from the pressures which might be felt by someone who owed their position to their
880
party or someone who was seeking further political patronage. That is the uniqueness of your Lordships' House.
Take my own position. Since taking my seat I have always taken the Conservative Whip. But that was my own decision. My father was, first of all, a Liberal Member of the other place; he then became a Labour Member of the other place; and then rejoined the Liberal Party in this House towards the end of his life. My decision to join the Conservative Party and rake the Conservative Whip was not an automatic one; it was one which I agonised over and took with great care in the context of all sorts of advice at that time. And, my Lords, it is from that perspective that I view the Government's decision to start the reform of the House of Lords in the way they intend more in sorrow than in anger.
Like many noble Lords on this side of the House and elsewhere have already made clear, I do not oppose reform of this House in itself; far from it. For example, there is, as everyone knows, a perception that my noble friend the Conservative Chief Whip can summon up sufficient noble Lords any day he likes to secure the view of his party. That is, I believe, more a perception than a reality, but perhaps no less real for that. I would therefore not necessarily oppose a restriction on the voting rights of Peers who were very infrequent attenders. I would emphasise that the problem of infrequent attenders is not confined to hereditary noble Lords of ancient lineage. It is regrettable that so many of the recently created life Peers, many of them apparently Labour Party supporters, having taken their seats, then subsequently attend hardly at all. I would also welcome allowing the leaders of all the main religious faiths in this country, and not just those from the Church of England, to be Members of this House and contribute to our debates. I listened with great care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I am not sure that I wholly went along with the view that the present Prelates who sit in this House are representative of the whole religious community in this country. I would welcome the leaders of other faiths here as well.
And, if some part of the hereditary system is to be retained, as perhaps it will be under the proposals, I would welcome a reform whereby the first born, and not just the first son, might inherit the title.
Many important functions, such as membership of Select Committees and being Deputy Speakers, are held by hereditary Peers. If hereditary Peers are to lose the right to sit in this House, then it will be for life Peers to fill those positions. I wonder whether life Peers, even those who are regular attenders, are willing to take on all the responsibilities that these extra duties require.
The Government have repeatedly drawn attention to what they see as the shortcomings of the hereditary principle. These arguments, if valid, could apply equally to our hereditary monarchy. Of course, the Government deny that they have any plans in this regard. No doubt that is true for the moment. But the fact is that when and if the forthcoming legislation passes into law, the

881
Queen will be the only remaining hereditary element in our constitution. Your Lordships may share my apprehension at that prospect.
Perhaps I may finally refer to the Royal Commission which the Government have announced. With the obvious exception of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, I wonder as to the knowledge and experience of the proposed members. I confess that their names, when I read them, were not all, although some were, familiar to me. Perhaps I do not move in the right circles. But I hope that the members of the Royal Commission will be ready to consider their evidence openly and freely and not come to their task with any preconceived notions.
We are, in the proposed legislation and in the first phase of the reform, upon which we are about to embark apparently, taking, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, a great leap in the dark. I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill:
"A thousand years scarce serve to build a city; an hour may lay it in the dust".
5.33 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, before I address specifically the White Paper, I should like to take up a point that was made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House during her speech. She said then that the issue itself had been discussed at great length over many years and there was no need for primary research. She is quite right in her first assertion. It is a topic that has been frequently discussed at great length over many years. But there is a great difference between a topic being discussed at great length and a topic being discussed in great depth. That is what has been absent from the debate about your Lordships' House in recent times. It has not been discussed in depth and I do believe there is still a case for serious primary research, not least into what happens in second chambers elsewhere.
In terms of the White Paper itself, the Motion invites us to "take note" of the White Paper. I find a slight problem in that because I am not sure there is a great deal to take note of. The White Paper raises far more questions than it answers. The White Paper tells us two things about the Government's approach to reform of the upper House. The first is that it does not exist within any intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change. The Government's plans for reform are flawed, because the Government are treating a change in the composition of this House as a cause, rather than a consequence, of wider constitutional change. This is especially important given the Government's other changes to the constitution.
As has already been mentioned in this debate, the starting point of constitutional change should not be the composition of a legislative chamber. The starting point should be the constitution. I have made that point before. What form of constitution do we want? What are the first principles that should determine the role of the legislature? Once we know that, then we know the powers and composition that are appropriate to the two chambers.
882
The Government have already embarked on a number of constitutional changes. It is the combination of changes that is important. Each has consequences for other changes. Taken together, they alter the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. What will the end result be? We are not altogether sure. That is not because the Government will not tell us. It is because the Government themselves do not know. They have no cohesive perception of the actual constitution that they are working towards.
The constitution became a topic of political debate in the 1970s. In subsequent years several coherent approaches to constitutional change emerged. In the past decade, two of those approaches have tended to dominate. One is the traditional approach. which is wedded to the Westminster model of government. The structure and relationships of our system have, for the past century, largely adhered to that model. It is a model that delivers a number of benefits: it provides for a form of government that is coherent, responsive, effective, flexible and, above all, accountable. There is one body—the party in government—responsible for public policy; and that body can be swept out of office if electors disapprove of that policy.
The other approach that has made much of the running in debate has been the liberal approach. It presses for a new constitutional settlement—one that is based on a particular view of society and of the individual—and the changes to the constitution that it favours are radical. It wants a new electoral system, a judicially enforceable Bill of Rights, devolution—or, in its pure form, federalism—and an elected second chamber, all embodied within a written constitution. I do not agree with that approach but I recognise that it is intellectually coherent. It has a clear goal and a clear premise for what it wants to achieve.
The problem with the Government's proposals for change is that they fit squarely within neither of those approaches; nor indeed within any of the others that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. They have not sought to articulate a coherent approach of their own. It appears that they have no clear goal. The absence of a clear goal is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the White Paper. The Government want to get rid of hereditary Peers—that is clear—but beyond that they have no developed views. They know there are several options. They point the Royal Commission in the direction of a mixed composition but otherwise they appear content to leave it to the Royal Commission. In other words, the Government are saying to the commission "We are a radical Government but please tell us what to do; and please do not do anything that will affect the House of Commons". There is a very strong case for maintaining the primacy of the House of Commons—I stress primacy rather than dictatorship—but it is not made in the White Paper. It is not put within any clear, coherent, constitutional framework.
The inadequacies in the White Paper lead me to pose a number of questions to the Government. What exactly is the approach—the intellectual approach—of the Government to constitutional change? How do the Government's proposals, such as they are for the Upper

883
House, fit in with that approach? We are entitled to expect answers that are grounded in the debate and the literature on the British constitution.
My fear is that we shall not get such answers—certainly not adequate answers—to those questions. That brings me to the second distinguishing characteristic of the White Paper, already been touched upon by other noble Lords. That is, that the Government's plans are clearly rushed. There has been inadequate preparation. The White Paper adds little knowledge on the subject, relying at times on material that is dated.
More fundamentally, the White Paper is clearly rushed in terms of the Government's thinking. Removing hereditary Peers, it is claimed, will enhance the legitimacy of the House. The White Paper also floats the possibility of a reduction in the powers of the House of Lords. In short, the Government envisage greater legitimacy but fewer powers. They are not committing themselves to fewer powers, but the fact that that possibility is mentioned in the White Paper lends itself to that perception. We must add to that the fact that the Government lean towards a mixed composition—that is, a part elected House. Once you have an elected body, be it wholly or partly elected, it is unlikely to rest content with limited powers.
The Government have not thought through the consequences of removing hereditary Peers. That is clear from the White Paper, from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, and from Answers given to Parliamentary Questions. The assumption is that the House can simply carry on as before. And that is all it is: an assumption. The Government have taken no steps, carried out no study, to determine the consequences. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made clear in answer to a Written Question from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that they have no intention of doing so.
Everything about what the Government have done exudes a sense of panic as well as a sense of disdain. There is an unwillingness to address the issue squarely and in depth. A Royal Commission is being hastily set up. II is to be rushed into producing a report. It is almost certainly not being given enough time to call the kind of witnesses that are crucial to such an inquiry; that is, experts from abroad who can offer authoritative testimony on second chambers. That is the kind of research that is clearly lacking in this whole exercise. Most of the debates over the years have been a repetition at a rather superficial level. There is a case for much more informed scrutiny and research of the role of second chambers.
The Government have had over a year, almost two years in fact—longer than they are giving the Royal Commission—to undertake a proper study in preparation for a White Paper on Lords Reform. The White Paper that we have before us is clearly not the product of such a study. We are entitled to ask why not.
In short, and in conclusion, the Government are rushing headlong into change on the basis of an incoherent approach to constitutional change. It may be too late to stop them getting it wrong, but let us he in no doubt that that is exactly what they are doing.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others, I believe that the White Paper is to be welcomed. It does not seem to me to mince words. Indeed, it sets out the agenda very clearly. I hope that I shall be forgiven for underlining some of its priorities. If it is arguably rather prescriptive for the work of the Royal Commission, that at least indicates the firm resolve of government rather than a shunting off of the responsibility of leadership.
Clearly the time for fundamental change has come. We cannot go into the 21st Century as we are, especially when so much is being done in other spheres of governance to regenerate the spirit of democracy. However, I do believe that in preparing for change we ought fully and generously to put on record that, whatever the historical origins of their privilege, and these can in some instances bear little scrutiny, there have been and still are hereditary peers in all parts of this House who have used their space and material security to bring a great sense of responsibility, originality, commitment, wisdom and public service to the affairs of Parliament. Some have also coupled those qualities with professional and academic distinction and with experience which have greatly enhanced the quality of our proceedings. It would be mean and dishonest to pretend otherwise. We have all witnessed it, not only in this Chamber but in the work of Select Committees as well. Indeed, the standards set by some hereditary Peers have been a challenge to the rest of us. That should be said without equivocation. I am glad that the White Paper and proposed interim arrangements at least in part acknowledge it.
Noblesse oblige is no bad principle; and whatever the changes that come, history will not smile on us if we underrate character and independence of judgment. We must not replace what we have with a grey, boring place made up of aspiring, over-compliant placemen unduly beholden to their party managers.
That brings me to my first point. We are closing a long and powerful chapter in our history. We are saying that it is no longer appropriate for a genuine democracy to have a second Chamber rooted in the power of wealth and social advantage: and that is what the title House of Lords has been all about. It belonged to a story in which social elitism dominated. Whatever the form and tasks of a new second Chamber, it needs a new name to convey the sense and purpose of a new reality. There should be no lingering doubts or confusions about its nature. Titles like "Lord" or "Lady" should surely no longer apply per se to membership of the new Chamber. I am glad that the wording of the White Paper, as I read it, with its very careful reference to "second Chamber"' in the terms of reference for the Royal Commission, does not fall into that trap. However, with the greatest possible respect, it is the amendment before us which does invite us to make just that mistake with its reference to "this Chamber" and with its failure to register a new beginning. We are not, I hope, about substituting a new would-be social elite for the old.
My second point is that, at a time of such historically significant change, we should not assume that, just because a second Chamber presently exists, there has to

885
be one. I personally believe one is needed. But I hope the Royal Commission will be brave enough to go back to first principles and look at this issue honestly. What it proposes should rest on a convincing case for such a Chamber. It should then go on to elaborate the precise functions before making recommendations about its form and membership. These recommendations should be tested against the purpose and function.
"Think again" and initiation of debate on matters of strategic concern which do not find an adequate place on the agenda of the House of Commons are obvious functions. But there is another. With the accentuation of global interdependence, more and more policy is inevitably considered and decided in international meetings and institutions. It is vital to keep such policy formulation and decision-making—not least treaties, conventions and agreements and the input by the UK to the process—under systematic scrutiny. We currently do this in this House with the European Union. But the arrangements for scrutiny should surely cover the IMF, the World Bank, the UN system, the G7, the World Trade Organisation, environmental conferences, NATO, OSCE, WEU, the Council of Europe and the rest. A second Chamber could well have a key part to play in monitoring globalisation and keeping the principle of accountability alive.
But at all costs the power of final decision-making should rest, and be seen to rest, with the Commons. Any fudging of this could tend to undermine the democratic accountability of the executive. "Divide and rule" could become potentially tempting. Care will therefore be necessary to ensure that nothing is inadvertently done which, over a period of time, whatever the parameters laid down at the beginning, might lead a second Chamber in the name, for example, of electoral legitimacy, to start challenging the supremacy of the Commons. Apart from any continuing specialist legal functions, a second Chamber should be, and should be seen to be, advisory.
As we have all come to understand, sustainable democracy is about more than general elections and adding up votes. It demands an open society with freedom of information; responsible, stimulating and challenging media, and an educational system which prepares the young for citizenship enabling them to become enquiring, analytical, questioning and positive individuals, self-confident and able to challenge authority. Healthy and sustainable democracy depends upon vibrant civil society. It values pluralism. Its political institutions, therefore, need to reflect that pluralism and not be about quantitative representation alone. This is obviously highly relevant to the composition of any new second Chamber. The importance of pluralism is manifested in the realms of religion, ethnicity, profession or occupation, culture, voluntary and non-governmental organisations, recreation and much else besides. As the significance of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the new constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and, indeed, regionalism in England increases, we shall also have to give serious
886
consideration to the relationship of these political developments to the centre of the context of a second Chamber.
There has been a tendency for formal political life to become a "closed" community. This is not wholesome. Political institutions, not least Parliament, should be open and transparent and involve the widest possible cross section of society. Any second Chamber should be well serviced, with its members able to give it their proper, effective attention. Eligibility for membership must not be inhibited by the limited means of any potential member.
I make two brief points in conclusion. I hope the Royal Commission will look at the case for a fixed term of service with no question of extension—in other words, nothing to play for. This could well contribute to strengthening the spirit of independent thought and judgment. Similarly, while ageism should be avoided and experience and perspective should be at a premium, nevertheless, while this may well deprive the nation of some still first class minds, I do believe the Royal Commission will need to grasp the nettle of an age limit. Any such limit could, of course, well reflect the evolution of society towards healthy longevity.
I join with those who have wished the Royal Commission well. We are well blessed by the calibre of those who have agreed to serve on it.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my quarrel with the Government is not that they wish to reform the House of Lords; it is that they are going about in such a cack-handed way. They started with their manifesto commitment to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. There is certainly a case for reform along those lines both because the number of hereditary Peers is disproportionate and also because the present system is widely perceived as being politically unsustainable, although as I have argued before, I believe that it is essential to keep the best of the hereditary element. That is why I strongly support the compromise negotiated with the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister by my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
However, I reject as pernicious the proposal that this should be followed at once by a further and final reform. Of course, I recognise that the Government were tempted down that route from many sources, partly by people in another place and partly by my own party. Indeed, having carefully read the speeches made in another place, it does not seem that either theme or great wisdom emerged to assist the Government. Frankly, I am not sure how interested MPs really are in it, or even some Members of the Government. I predict that boredom will quickly erode any support that the Government may have for their measures among the wider public.
But to set up a Royal Commission on this complicated subject with no more than 10 months to report is dangerous nonsense. In a recent Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, kindly listed for me the 39 Royal Commissions set up

887
since the war. Thirty of these took over two years to report. Only one of them met the timetable set for the House of Lords Royal Commission, and that was set up in 1951 to consider the relationship of Dundee and St. Andrews universities, a subject which some of your Lordships might just feel is somewhat easier, although certainly not less important.
The simple fact is that within any constitution, whether written or unwritten, there is a most delicate set of inter-relationships. Perhaps it is rather like a game of spillikins. in which the players try to pick up a spillikin from the heap without moving any others. The Government give the impression of believing that the ideal New Labour Britain can have its constitution worked out on the back of an envelope, probably during a taxi ride.
At the present time there are at least two major changes being imposed upon our constitution. The first is internal: the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, and perhaps subsequently to the English regions. The other is external; namely the ever-growing role of the European Union in our domestic affairs. There is also, of course, the little matter of the possible change to our electoral system.
Some of us who over the years have had a professional task of observing Parliament, and particularly the House of Commons, at work and at play, may also have noted that the quality of political life has changed. This may already have had a negative effect in attracting the ablest participants.
I would suggest to the Government that before it is possible to come to any view on the long-term functions and structure of the House of Lords it will be essential to see how various major upheavals work out in practice.
In making my case for delay I would like to make a few remarks about the constitutions of two other countries with which we have had the closest links over the centuries, namely, France and the United States. Seldom have so many attempts been made to change a constitution than in France since the French Revolution. I leave aside the period of the revolution itself and the five further years of chaos until the military dictatorship of Napoleon was established. Since then there have been nine different constitutions. The current one, the Fifth Republic, has lasted over 40 years.
But in some ways the most interesting political lesson of the French Revolution is that, for all the drama of those early years and the subsequent changes, France has ended up being run by very much the same sort of people as were running it before 1789—an elite bureaucracy. In the days of Louis XVI, it was the corps headed by the group with the rank of Secretaire du Roi. These high offices, which were often purchased by those who had embarked on successful commercial careers, led to immediate hereditary ennoblement. Lesser posts gave ennoblement for life, although if the post was held for three generations the ennoblement became hereditary.
888
Today France is run by the Enarches, the products of the Grandes Ecoles or ENA, many of whom are remarkably similar in their elite educational background and proven ability to Members of your Lordships' House.
If one measures the success of a constitution by its durability—it is not a bad test especially in a democracy—the constitution of the United States stands out. It is truly remarkable that in over 200 years there have been only 26 amendments, and the first 10 of those were in 1791—the Bill of Rights.
The American Senate, by the test of any form of proportional representation., can hardly be described as democratic. There are two senators from each state: equal representation for California, the largest state, with a population of 32 million, to Wyoming, the smallest, with fewer than half a million. Originally the Senate was indirectly elected, with senators chosen by the legislature of each state. Direct elections were only introduced under the 17th amendment of 1913. I understand that changes in the present arrangements are not regarded as a priority in the United States.
Earlier this month I had the opportunity to visit a fascinating exhibition entitled "The Great Experiment— George Washington and the American Republic" in the Huntington Library in California. In the scholarly catalogue John Rhodehamel, curator of American history at the Huntington, paraphrases a reply by Washington to an English aristocrat who had inquired as to his ancestry:
"In republican society people born equal still seek honours supplied by titles of nobility. A kind of loose republican aristocracy may exist in America but entry into its ranks does not require fortunate birth but rather demonstrated talent, ambition and a virtuous devotion to the public good".
Your Lordships may feel that that is a remarkably close description of many Members of your Lordships' House—and not only life Peers. It is perhaps not a coincidence that in the United States senior public servants retain for life the title of their office or the descriptor "honourable".
As the Government have in the short run—the very short run—handed over responsibility for the future of your Lordships' House to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his 11 colleagues on the Royal Commission, I suppose that it is to them that my remarks are primarily directed. I hope that it will not be too many months before they return to the Government with a short lesson in the complexities and practicalities of constitutional reform. At present there is a real danger that the White Paper will degenerate into instant and ill-conceived legislation such as that on dangerous dogs and firearms. The difference is that this is all rather more important. It really could affect the lives and wellbeing of all the people of our country. Noble Lords may well be justified in using their powers to ask the Government to think again and again—and if necessary again.
6.1 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for introducing this debate today. The White Paper states that stage

889
one—the removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House—is a real change in the way that Britain is governed and one of the most radical seen this century. This major constitutional change is one of several which, as your Lordships are well aware, have been enacted since this Government took office. However, unlike devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the mayoralty and assembly for London, the Government do not propose to submit this radical change for the people's approval in a referendum. This does not surprise me because two recent opinion polls by MORI and ICM suggest that by margins of two to one and three to one the public are opposed to the removal of hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House until the details of reform, including stage two, have been settled.
The Government believe that your Lordships' House suffers from a lack of legitimacy because of the presence of hereditary Peers. The White Paper also reveals the Government's belief that the existence of inheritance as one of the qualifications for membership has led your Lordships' House to exercise restraint in the use of its legislative powers. I do not believe that this is so. Rather, most Members of your Lordships' House, life and hereditary Members alike, believe that the extent to which they should challenge the will of the democratically elected House is limited.
The Government believe that the removal of the rights of hereditary Peers will in itself amount to a marked improvement of your Lordships' House, removing much of the cause of its deficit in both effectiveness and balance. It is harder to argue about balance. However, it is not true, although it is sometimes claimed, that the Conservative Party enjoys a large overall majority in your Lordships' House. The White Paper itself states that 476 Peers, or 41 per cent., take the Conservative Whip. It is also clear that most noble Lords are much less driven by their political affiliations and are much more independent than Members of another place. Twenty-seven per cent. of your Lordships have no political affiliation. On the one hand, the White Paper recognises that the voice of independent Peers is one of the great strengths of the House, but removal of the hereditary Peers would reduce the number of Cross-Benchers by nearly 70 per cent. The transitional House will have a much smaller independent element, and it is hard to see how any future House, appointed or elected, could include as strong and independent an element as exists at present.
I do not wish to defend the hereditary principle in democratic terms, which is clearly difficult. Indeed, it is equally difficult to argue that appointed Peers are democratic. However, I do not agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, in your Lordships' House on 14th October last year that she did not believe she would employ a hereditary plumber. My experience leads me to the opposite view, as expressed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. All other things being equal, I think I would tend to employ a hereditary plumber rather than one whose father had had a completely different occupation. I also would tend to prefer a hereditary accountant, builder,
890
soldier, or any other hereditary. I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and therefore I am not at all surprised that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has turned out to be a competent and effective hereditary legislator. Noble Lords will be quick, and correct, to remind me that she sits in this place by appointment as a result of her distinguished career and impressive achievements. Nevertheless I would be equally happy to see her sit in this place under a writ in acceleration, like my noble friend Lord Cranborne.
As a hereditary Peer I feel a little disappointed that the Government think that our removal from your Lordships' House will improve its effectiveness. This suggests that hereditary Peers make a net negative contribution to the effectiveness of the House. To be replaced with nothing is a profoundly depressing thought, whereas most hereditary Peers would happily depart this place if they knew the details of the fully reformed House and they appeared to make sense and commanded a degree of public approval.
Your Lordships' House is obviously not democratically elected but it plays a crucial role in the democratic process in various important ways. Its in-built conservative (with a small "c") majority enables it to act as a restraining influence on the introduction of radical changes to our legislation and our constitution. I believe that even some noble Lords on the Benches opposite would agree with the proposition that constitutional change should be more difficult for a powerful Executive commanding a large majority in another place than a minor legislative change. In many countries constitutional change requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and a referendum. It is relatively easy to change our unwritten constitution here, and I believe it is a good thing that your Lordships' House has been able to act as a brake on too rapid and ill-considered change. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we have been successful enough in this, but, as I have said, we must ultimately submit to the will of the elected Chamber. The transitional House will be much less able to perform this important function. It will also be much less able to hold the Executive to account in a wider sense. It will clearly have fewer Members with current or recent experience in many varied walks of life; it will be much more political, and I expect that the power of the Whips will gradually increase. There will be more pressure for regular attendance, and the membership will include a much larger element of professional politicians, making your Lordships' House more like another place.
The White Paper states that the deliberative function of your Lordships' House is important and valued and expresses the hope that the fully reformed second Chamber will be equipped to continue it and even to expand it. I am surprised that the Government are content to express such a hope rather than acknowledge that a reformed House must be so equipped. It is thus all the more dangerous not to achieve consensus on what a fully reformed House should look like before proceeding with stage one, which will leave a neutered Chamber, with reduced ability to carry out its functions, commanding less respect and held in lower regard than your Lordships' House is today both at home and

891
overseas. I believe that the Government are wrong. The transitional House will have less, not more, legitimacy than the present one. It will be less and not more effective in exercising its duties.
I have spent nearly half my working life in Japan and have travelled extensively over 25 years as an investment banker. This Parliament, including your Lordships' House, is regarded as the Mother of Parliaments and is held in great respect by many people around the world, in spite of or, dare I say, partly because of its unique features. There are many reasons why Britain punches above its weight in foreign affairs. One is the excellent quality of our Diplomatic Service and those who represent this country abroad. Another is the high regard in which this country's constitutional arrangements are held.
Like many noble Lords, I, too, was concerned at the Government's suggestion that the powers of your Lordships' House might be reduced. I therefore welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde which I shall support, and I urge other noble Lords to do so. If I may, I should like briefly to talk about Japan. The Japanese Diet before the Second World. War was modelled closely on our Parliament, with a largely hereditary, partly appointed, House of Peers and an elected House of Representatives. After the war the constitution was changed at the instigation of the American occupation forces and the House of Peers was replaced in 1947 by the House of Councillors, 50 per cent. of whose members are elected for six years every three years partly on a national constituency basis by a closed list proportional representation system and partly on a prefectural constituency basis. Most Japanese believe that the adoption of the closed list system for the national constituency was a mistake.
It was intended that Japan's reformed upper House should be a "Chamber of common sense". It was hoped that its members 'would not conduct their business in accordance with the dictates of political parties and that its membership should not consist principally of professional politicians. Unfortunately, Japan's citizens have been disappointed. There is general apathy towards the House of Councillors and in recent elections only around 30 per cent. of the eligible electors have bothered to vote. Many of the Members are former Members of the lower House, the House of Representatives; and the business of the House is dominated by party politics. The electoral systems used by the two Houses are fairly similar, following recent electoral reforms, and many Japanese now believe that the upper House is redundant because it offers nothing different from or additional to what the lower House gives the Japanese.
Perhaps if we, rather than the Americans, had been the occupying power in Japan after the war they might have kepi their hereditary upper House intact, in which case it might well have survived even until the present day. It is also a fact that Japanese electors appear to believe in the idea of hereditary legislators; some one-third of the seats in the lower House are occupied by sons, grandsons, sons-in-law and, increasingly, daughters of their predecessors.
892
In conclusion, I should like to return to the challenge that we face in creating a second Chamber which is better than the present one. I know that the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham will have its work cut out to produce firm recommendations by the end of this year. In order to ensure that the reformed House should have more not less legitimacy and credibility than your Lordships' House has at present, I would hope that the commission will make recommendations which maximise continuity with the present system arid preserve a significant and independent element, without which Parliament as a whole will be further diminished rather than strengthened, as it needs to be. I have spoken too long and I thank your Lordships for your patience.
6.12 p.m.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing a White Paper which answers nearly all our questions with regard to a reformed second Chamber. It lays down encouraging guidelines on the prospects for further modernisation. It is on the latter subject, however, that I wish to speak.
I take the line that the nation will be best served by a second Chamber which stands in complete contrast to the first Chamber. I envisage that its Member; will be appointed in part by an all-party committee to select Peers with the broadest possible expertise and the widest possible range of professional qualifications. I should like to see them sitting for a 10-year period of office, with the committee holding the option to renew their peerages for an additional term, or half a term, according to what the committee thinks best, but with an upper age limit of 75 as the threshold for automatic retirement.
While these might account for half of the Peers in the second Chamber, I remain anxious that the additional half of your Lordships' House should accurately reflect the regional diversity of this land. I have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have set up regional development agencies which will probably emerge as the initial nuclei for the future English regions, although the creation of regional assemblies will also be essential before they can possibly feel that each is emerging in control of its particular quality of life.
I sincerely hope that the Government will encourage these regions to appear, each within a territory soon to be defined and of sufficient geographical size to warrant the sense of emergent identity. If they were too small the purpose would not be served. The smallest region should perhaps be the size of Yorkshire, but in most cases a whole group of counties would be involved, until England might finally consist of nine regions of a similar size in terms of their population. This will furnish the map of England which I envisage will find its place at the heart of European political evolution towards a "United Regions of Europe".
However, those regions require cosseting and governmental care in their emergence upon the political scene; and they must surely be given representation within the proposed second Chamber, with each of them

893
sending up a delegation of Peers who should be selected by a method parallel to that used for the selection of the other Peers, although not by the same all-party committee for the appointment of Peers on a national basis.
In order to reinforce the idea that those latter are regional nominations, the appointment should be made conjointly by the county councils of each region, with it being a matter for themselves to decide the character of Peers who should form their own delegation. That would constitute a second Chamber appointed by those who have been directly elected: in the first case chosen by our elected Members of Parliament to sit on the all-party committee for selecting Peers on a national basis; and in the second case chosen by the elected county councillors to represent their particular region. So Peers of both varieties will have been indirectly elected to the second Chamber with equal authority and similar duration of office—a unity of purpose and responsibility that should create no psychological division between the two groups, and without any of them having been directly elected.
The two elements that would still be missing from such a second Chamber would be the European and the spiritual dimensions. The appointment of Lords Spiritual could well continue on the existing basis, but in participation perhaps with the all-party committee's quota for appointees. And I would hope that the representatives of all the faiths which are to be found within this nation would find themselves nominated on a basis proportional to the prevalence of each faith within our society.
The European dimension should emerge as the special responsibility of the regional Peers: to establish cultural bonds with regions elsewhere throughout Europe, discovering where in Europe they might be doing things better than we are; and assisting them to learn from us where that might be applicable—for it is largely by these methods that the Europe of regions will finally emerge.
It will be in those particular functions of the second Chamber that we may expect Europe to start coming closer together in harmony, but with cultural diversity. I suggest that that is the legacy which we should be striving to hand down to our children. So while your Lordships' House will remain strictly subordinate to another place, we might well discover that the quality of life, both in terms of our region and our continent, are very much in these hands.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a rare privilege to follow the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, and to listen again to the fascinating exposition on regional government and the composition of a second Chamber without physical divisions and so forth. But I am lost—I do not understand what it has to do with the subject of the White Paper.
I wish to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for clarifying that the powers of the second Chamber are to be within the terms of
894
reference of the Royal Commission. It is a matter of considerable consequence. I gave the noble Baroness notice of the question and I am extremely grateful for her answer. The main issue in our discussions today is concerned with the weakening of the powers. As my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Strathclyde and many other noble Lords have observed, that is the crucial issue which will go before the Royal Commission.
The concession given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is also extremely valuable because the Royal Commission cannot deal with functions until it has dealt with powers. Until it has dealt with both, it cannot devise composition. I suggest that the concession goes to the root of our discussions. It is a very important factor.
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and apologise for my intervention. He raised many questions of detailed implementation as regards the arrangement of the transitional House. He was a party to that arrangement and he was not conversant with so many details of implementation. That worried me and it may in due course worry your Lordships. I suggest with great respect that it would have been helpful to your Lordships to have the benefit of the knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Marsh. which they could put at our disposal to help us in this matter.
The Motion moved by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House enjoins your Lordships to "take note" of a phased strategy of attrition to distress the constitution and debilitate Parliament. It is but a reflection of the policy of Labour since 1910, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard—and I see him in his place—conceded some time ago. In the wake of the landslide election, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, suggested a referendum on options for reform, which was declined; albeit a matter on which resolutions should be sought by consensus, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agrees in principle.
However, is it not a meretricious assumption that only the proposals in the White Paper can afford requisite reform; an hubristic dissemblance of the people who, before partial demolition of the structure, wish to know the plans for reconstruction of the edifice? The case for a referendum, as sought by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, remains as valid as when unanswered by reasoned response.
Is it not apparent from the Official Report of the proceedings in another place on the first phase of the strategy that the acknowledged function of your Lordships' House as guardian of the constitution is neither recognised nor understood by another place? My noble friend Lord Denham, in an authoritative speech, made that all too plain as being his opinion.
In the exercise of that function, having taken due note of the Motion, your Lordships may well conclude that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is to be supported if only to persuade the Government to preserve some form of an effective bicameral administration under the Queen in Parliament; a proposition which envisages retention of the ethos of

895
the independence of your Lordships' House. And this debate—it may be said to the contrary—could never have taken place on Second Reading of the Bill, which was only the first stage of the implementation.
I have notes, but I shall pick at them in order to keep within the time limit. I should like to deal with a transitional House. According to the White Paper, the Government are minded to accept the provisional inchoate arrangement brokered by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, if tabled as a Cross-Bench amendment. That is how I understood the position. However, there is no definitive version of that arrangement and no draft of the amendment is available. No assurance of safe conduct of its passage through either House can be given. However, it may riot be assumed that the preconditions as to acceptance, as expressed at Chapter 5 paragraph 11 of the White Paper, or by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on 20th January, form part of such arrangement as being in deprivation of parliamentary entitlement. None of us was there, none of us would know, and there is no way in which we can know, the details of implementation.
The version of the arrangement given at Chapter 5, paragraph 11, bears no resemblance whatever to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 moved in Committee in another place. That is certain. Those amendments import disparity as to the implementation of Clauses I and 4, which could attract hybridity. The accommodation made to ensure orderly transition was a feat of diplomacy on the part of my noble friend in the interests of the body politic. It is in one way or another worthy of your Lordships' support. I say "one way or another" because it could be by amendment, it could be by an enabling Bill, which could, not attract hybridity, or by some other arrangement. The hope is that the substance may be given effect.
6.30 p. m
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, on reading the White Paper, my principal worry was that when it was putting forward suggestions and considering the place of a second Chamber in the constitution, it seems to have given little—almost no—consideration to what I conceive to be the major problem of the British constitution; namely, the dominance of the executive over the legislature.
That is not a new phenomenon. It has grown steadily throughout this century and has particularly accelerated over the past 30 or so years. Even the rather feeble check which MPs used to have on the executive—namely, that when an MP was appointed to the Cabinet, he had to stand for re-election—was removed in 1926 with the support of almost all the parties.
In essence, that executive power springs from the very close control which modern political parties exercise over their members who are chosen for the legislature. It is extremely difficult for a modern Member of Parliament to be free and independent. Rebellion can always be punished by deselection. I need hardly say that that power is enhanced enormously by closed lists.
The only time that we have seen the legislature—the other place, in particular—checking the executive over the past 50 years has been when a government have had
896
a tiny or no majority. Few individuals who have left their party have survived long on their own, as noble Lords on other Benches know. It is noticeable that modern rebels find solace and comfort by joining another powerful political party rather than face the thorny and rugged path of independence.
That power of the party machine, strong enough 'In itself, has been enhanced by the growing professionalism of politics. There are Members of another place from all major parties who have known no other trade than politics. They left university, often with distinguished degrees, joined a think tank, became a political adviser and, lo and behold, they are in Parliament.
What do they do if they are defeated? They find it difficult to obtain jobs. I can tell your Lordships that when I was headmaster, I had four such applicants at one time applying for posts. None was successful. But that gives the party even more power over its members. It says to them, "If you are defeated, there is nothing much for you outside".
That power has been enhanced also by the increase in the number of Ministers and the number of quangos for which appointments can be made. That means strong parties, strong patronage and sticks and carrots—a large stick and a juicy carrot.
We talk about democratic accountability in relation to the reform of this House. However, if we had a totally elected Chamber, that would mean giving the parties greater control than they enjoy at present. We must face the fact, pure and simple, that those who advocate a largely elected upper House are in reality promoting strong executive and party control.
In that regard, I must say to noble Lords who have talked about indirect elections that, again, one faces the path of control by the party. Indirect election is exercised in the French Senate. The senators are chosen by the elected members, local authorities and so on. In fact, in the end, it means control by party and retired and defunct party functionaries being pushed up to the upper chamber. Moreover, we should remember that the parties in France are much weaker than they are in the United Kingdom.
I go further. I suggest that if the Royal Commission advocates a largely elected upper House, then it must also be prepared, if it is not to face total executive control of the legislature, to face the radical step of separation of powers. In the British system, the only way in which to avoid a totally party-controlled legislature, if we had both Houses elected, would be to separate the executive from the legislature, as is the case in the United States.
Therefore, whatever the Royal Commission decides, it must maintain a measure of independence for this House. That must be the essence, the centre, of any reform. Would the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee be as independent as it has been, torturing governments of both parties, if this House were controlled by the party machine? Can your Lordships imagine either the Conservative or Labour Party having its health or education Bill subject to the sort of criticism which has occurred in the past?

897
Even a fully nominated House of life Peers would, to my mind, be more independent than a fully elected House. My noble friend Lord Peyton often reminded the Whips of his party that there was nothing they had that he wanted and there was nothing that he had which they could take away from him. I share his opinions. But if the present Government reform the constitution by statute, with the support of a large majority, I am no longer so sure.
Unlike the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, I cannot offer a blueprint for the future. It is very, very difficult. However, I suggest, for the third time, that election is no panacea. Recent events have shown that "elective dictatorship" is no cliché. Any reform must refer to independence. Indirect election is not necessarily an answer. I admire the Royal Commission for taking on that task but that will be a massive task if it is to preserve an independent second Chamber which will curb an over-mighty executive. I hope it rises to that.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am an hereditary abolitionist of the role of the hereditary peerage in this place. At the beginning of this century, my great uncle argued strongly for an end to it, as did my grandmother and mother and myself in my time.
It is a great sorrow to me that my party took the attitude that it did, and, fundamentally, I am delighted that the Government have chosen at last to make this step, although I believe that had we done it we should have done it a good deal better and in better order. Nevertheless, I am pleased that we find ourselves where we are.
I wish my noble friend the very best of success with the Royal Commission in producing a dynamic, independent and effective second Chamber. I mean dynamic as an opposite to static. For too long in this House we have had a static arrangement. We wanted to change the constitution of this House in 1968 and were prevented from doing so. If you stop the system changing when all around it is changing, all you have at the end of the day is an earthquake, which is what we have at the moment. We have a turning upside down of the system, of which none of us can predict the outcome.
I should prefer to see a dynamic system where changes occur gradually and regularly in a well thought out and well considered fashion. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account when he is following through the work of the Royal Commission. If we try to propose something which is too radical, if the Royal Commission suggests something which is too different from where we are now, the chances of it getting through another place must be very small. I should prefer it to advocate a relatively small change now but with a programme for evolution in the future.
It has been a great strength of this place that we have control over our functions and what we do. We are able to respond to changes in the world and to changes in another place in deciding how best to spend our time so that we complement and do not tread on the toes of another place.
898
It has also been a great strength that we have many more powers than we use. Again, there is a dynamic balance. We could always go further. We could always defeat the Government more often. We could always push more Bills through to the Parliament Act. But we do not do that because we want to be listened to. And the Government listen to us because we could do so. If we try to fossilise that balance, if we try to have strict rules for what one House can do and the other cannot, we will quickly find ourselves enmeshed in a political stalemate and endless verbal conflict without achieving half as much as we do now.
The second matter on which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Judd—I have rarely listened to a speech of his and agreed with so much of it—is in the matter of for how long people should be allowed to be Members of this House. "Life" it is and "life" it should remain. I have happy memories of taking a Bill through this House and being out-argued and in the end defeated by three noble Lords whose combined ages were 286. We are told that those being born today and who will one day become Members of this Chamber have a life expectancy of 120. I cannot see why we should not expect them to be active and useful Members of this House well past 100.
In a way this House is self-selecting. Those who can no longer contribute and those who no longer have anything to offer this House do not come. What does it matter? We are left with people like that terror of governments of all colours, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—the people we should be left with.
The other thing we should look for is independence in Back-Benchers. To be in government and have the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, or my late lamented friend Lucy Faithfull, behind is a great motivation for our Government to change their mind when they are wrong. We not only face difficulties from in front, but we know that behind are people who are powerful in argument and powerful in friends who would, if necessary, defeat us. That makes a great difference. I hope that we see more of them coming from the Government Back Benches.
There are some great minds on the Government Back-Benches who have not yet shaken themselves into open independence. I introduced a Freedom of Information Bill and got not one speaker, nor member of the audience, from the government side, yet that is a subject in which the Government are supposed to believe. That shows an astonishing lack of interest in something that is supposed to be central to their belief and indicates a lack of interest in what is essential to the future of the constitution of this country. This is a great opportunity for Members on the Government Back Benches to put forward their views. I am sad that so few are doing so. We are missing a great deal by their lack of activity and lack of ability to be independent. It will come, I hope, with time in government, but it is a sadness that we have now.
The third characteristic I should like to see in this House is effectiveness. Effectiveness is a question of the quality of the people we have here. We need a broad

899
spread of expertise and experience; we need articulate people and people who are committed to the work of this House. If we are to have that, then Members must feel that they have something to contribute; that this House is able to do something.
We must have a House which can change the Government's mind; it must be a House which can defeat the Government. There seems to be an abiding lack of understanding of that on the Government Front Bench. They seem to resent the fact that this House can defeat them. This House should defeat them. It must be the essence of this place that this House can defeat the Government as often as it likes but controls that ability because, if it starts to over-use it, it will lose its respect from the Government and its ability to win arguments.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord provokes me. Can he not see that a situation in which the opposite side of the House can drag 400 people into a Division Lobby and this side of the House can only drag 150, if everybody turns out, and as a result of that the opposite side of the House can win any Division it wishes, even if the Government Chief Whip pulls out all the stops, produces a strong degree of feeling on this side of the House that we are being and have been unfairly treated for many years?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is a ridiculous feature of the way things are at the moment. But 1 hope that the Government will have the strength to see beyond that long suffering through which they have been—to my mind totally unreasonably—and see that the future of this House should not be one where it is hard to defeat the Government. It should be one where it is relatively easy, with agreement in most sections of the House, to defeat the Government, but where restraint is exercised in doing so because the House wishes to win arguments and not play politics. That is a change that I hope to see from the Government Front Bench.
However, I am concerned, as is my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, that this Government see this House and its transition as a rather old and curmudgeonly crab in the process of changing its shell, and for a few moments it will be soft and vulnerable to attack so that they can take a large bite out of it. I share my noble friend's concern that they wish this House to lose powers. I am concerned too at what is said on page 32 of the White Paper:
"our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives",
as though holding some internal argument, some unstated wish to move beyond that, to the point where the Government have a dominating position. I support my noble friend's amendment and hope that this House will agree to it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hemmingford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whose efforts on behalf of freedom and information I salute. It became obvious to me some years ago as a newspaper executive that some of the problems with the role of the media in
900
society were due to the weakness and imbalance in our constitution. What was happening was that two of the three pillars on which the constitution rested 300 years ago were severely weakened. The monarchy no longer exercised any effective political power and the ability of this House to check the power of the other place—and particularly the Government in that House—was more apparent than real. No wonder the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke of an elective dictatorship.
Into the vacuum which was caused by the absence of effective checks and balances were drawn the media, but particularly the press because, while broadcasting is regulated by the Government, despite the events of the weekend, the newspapers are supposed not to be. As a journalist I have never been happy with the notion of the press as being even the fourth estate of government. But it seemed to me nearly 10 years ago when I first advanced the thought—and it seems even more so now with the burgeoning power of the multi-national media—that for them to become in effect the second estate is highly dangerous. I note with pleasure that the idea appears to be gaining currency among some of our more thoughtful columnists. Both Andrew Man in the Observer and Hugo Young of the Guardian alluded to it in recent weeks.
It is timely to point out today that if governments faced much more rigorous scrutiny in the upper Chamber and could not even be sure of getting their legislation passed, they would have to pay more attention to Parliament with correspondingly less time or inclination for obsessive manipulation of the media whether by partial leaking or heavy-handed legal action. That would benefit both good government and freedom of expression. We might even get an effective freedom of information Act. In saying that, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the board of the Association of British Editors.
It is particularly against that background that I venture to hold up to your Lordships the document that we are considering today. And against that background, quite frankly, it looks pretty feeble. On the Eurovision Song Contest scale I give it deux points; one for finally proposing to end our rights to vote—in that again I am with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—and to speak here, and another for proposing (or so I optimistically assume) a substantial reduction in numbers. If the United States can limit its Upper Chamber to 100, we can surely manage with no more.
John Bright said, 140 years ago, that everyone recognised that an hereditary legislature could not be a permanent institution in a free country and no one knew it better than the Peers. Today it is presented to us as something radical. Such a description I can only describe, remaining inside the parliamentary conventions, as exaggerated. At any rate, I will go readily when the time comes but I should like to feel that, in the process, we had contributed to an improvement in our constitution rather than to a cosmetic rearrangement, which seems more likely.
On the specific grounds which I have outlined, and I believe on general grounds as well, what is required is the re-establishment of effective balance in our

901
constitution. In my opinion, that requires that this House be directly elected. We should not fudge this. There is much in the paper about legitimacy. Of course, our present make-up is not legitimate, but legitimacy is often in the eye of the beholder. Once we hereditaries are gone, give or take 91 of us here or there, the legitimacy and independence of the reformed House will not have been improved vis-à-vis the other place—not that the Government are leaving that to chance. They specifically tell the Royal Commission that it must maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. As the Guardian headline had it:
"He calls it reform, but all Blair wants is an impotent second chamber".
From the world outside, where I spend most of my time, the reaction to all this by your Lordships has looked disappointingly near-sighted and self-serving. The Government supporters are largely silent. The Liberal Democrats are seen to have allowed themselves to be hamstrung by a promise of possible PR if they behave themselves. The Conservatives have hamstrung themselves by failing to tackle the problem in their 18 years of office, and the fact that so many of them are hereditary means that anything they do looks like an attempt at self-preservation. I regret that some Cross-Bench manoeuvring, as has already been mentioned, looks similarly unconvincing. Where are the clarion calls for some genuine radicalism and reform? The danger, as we recognise, is real but we are not highlighting it in the country.
I favour an upper Chamber elected on a regional basis and for a much longer term—say, 10 or 12 years—so that its legitimacy is equal to that of the other place. I believe that the Bishops should go. It is surely time that the Church of England was dis-established anyway, but I doubt whether the presence of some nominated Law Lords would be a fatal flaw. The document before us is headed Modernising Parliament. Its proposals do not look very modern to me; not that modernity in itself should be the measure. There is no great merit in it for its own sake. "Improving" or "strengthening" would be better watchwords.
Those who have an understandable attachment to the status quo are inclined to say of this House, "Well, I know you cannot justify it, but it works". I believe that we know, really, that it does not work very well and that the restrictions put upon the Royal Commission are designed to ensure that it goes on not working very well. I think that we should be prepared to say so, loud and clear.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I have been on leave of absence for some time. I should perhaps explain my reason for returning to your Lordships' House and speaking today. I have not been drawn back by threats or blandishments from the Whips. Indeed, perhaps I should apologise to the Whips' Office. I take the Whip in the same way that I take a daily newspaper—as a useful source of information, not generally as a serious guide to action. However, an article that appeared in the
902
Daily Telegraph, attributed to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, with the striking headline, "Hereditary Peers are illegitimate" called me back.
Other noble Lords have mentioned this matter but perhaps I may add a few words. This House works extraordinarily well and has proved flexible to change and modernisation. Nevertheless, I accept, as do others, that there must inevitably be further changes in its constitution, duties and responsibilities. I accept that the hereditary principle is not the flavour of the month. I should be supportive of plans to modernise the House and have no hankering to retain any rights to sit here. So, why did the noble Baroness's article cause me concern? Why did the word "illegitimate" strike me so forcibly? It is mentioned five or six times, I believe, in the introduction to the White Paper.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way. He, obviously, has not been present, and has explained why very graciously. I have mentioned before, when this particular article was raised, that the headline was not of my making but of the editors of the Daily Telegraph.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness; nevertheless, that headline called me back! As I said, the daily newspapers and the Whips are much the same to me.
We have an unwritten constitution in this country which, like the common law, is based on precedent. It is very flexible and lively, and every Member of this House and the other place has sworn an oath intending to sustain it. The constitution can be changed, and regularly is changed, after due thought and consultation. This is evolution. It is necessary and quite legitimate; but to change the constitution of our kingdom arbitrarily and peremptorily is not legitimate. Radical changes of one element of our parliamentary constitution—in this case the proposal to abolish the voting rights and the attendance of more than half of the Members of this House—would alter not just the constitution of this House but the whole constitution of the country.
My belief is that every member of this House and every member of another place has a duty to perform, and a trust to keep, to ensure that the constitution is not abused. My concern is that the proposals in the White Paper are abusive and not legitimate. It must be wrong to exclude more than half of this House from the discussion and determination of what should succeed it.
The minimalist argument that the proposals were included in the Labour manifesto before the last election in no way eliminates our duty as trustees of the constitution. The Salisbury Convention, not quite as young a creature as the manifesto, was in no way intended or designed to apply in such circumstances. The argument that the Government must be trusted to complete the new constitution of this House seems to me to be quite false. A trustee can take nothing on trust. The existing members of this House must have an opportunity to see the serious proposals of what is intended to replace it before they can legitimately accept disenfranchisement. If not, we are left with individual breaches of trust as well as a broken constitution.

903
If there was a hidden agenda to undermine our constitution—for instance, to make it so pliant and dominated by the Executive that it could easily be subsumed into the great European federation—I could at least see a reason for this constitutional vandalism. However, if the objective is truly to modernise and improve this House and the way it works, the two-stage approach is very naïve and foolish and/or vindictive as well as being wrong. If legitimacy was an honest desire it could easily be accomplished by waiting on the Royal Commission. Then the issue could be resolved smoothly, quickly and without rancour.
I have no great emotional ties to this House, apart from delight in its courtesy and the many friends I have made here. I am a new boy. My father, Ralph Assheton, was a first creation Peer who served many years in the other place. However, I do have emotional ties to the other place for, although I have never had the privilege of sitting there, more than 20 Asshetons, kinsmen and forebears of mine, have done so over the centuries.
The first I know of was Sir John Assheton who was called there in 1323. Ten generations later, Ralph Assheton, who served in the Long Parliament, and was originally a staunch parliamentarian, became so appalled by the outcome of his support for Cromwell, which had resulted in the murder of the King and the destruction of both Houses of Parliament, that in his will he left all his unentailed property to the orphaned son of his cousin. That cousin, who died fighting at Edgehill, was my direct ancestor and we live in the house which his son inherited. I can see that Ralph Assheton standing now at the Bar of the House supporting what I have been saying today, "Don't embark on a constitutional revolution without realising what damage you are doing and what the outcome will be".
7 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, it is with something of a shock that I recall that I made my maiden speech in the distant days of the Attlee administration. I mention that because however much one may have disagreed with his policies, Mr. Attlee—later, of course, Earl Attlee—was a Prime Minister with high principles. I simply cannot believe that he would have cynically compromised his position in the way in which the present Prime Minister is apparently prepared to do in retaining some hereditary Peers.
Today we have a Prime Minister who, apart from a ruthless pursuit of power and a pathological obsession with the media to the exclusion of Parliament, does not seem to believe in anything much—not even, when it comes to the crunch, in expelling hereditary Peers. After denigrating them and pouring buckets of garbage at them for years, we now have this cynical manoeuvre implying that they are not so bad after all—at any rate, some of them are not so bad—provided, of course, that they behave themselves and that there are no Passchendaeles, no pitched battles and perhaps not even a skirmish. What is so serious for the nation is that the Prime Minister is not just careless but downright irresponsible over the constitution.
904
It is now the turn of this House to bear the brunt of the Government's constitutional vandalism. As a result of pressure there is to be a Royal Commission, but one that is hemmed in by too tight a timetable and barely concealed instructions. There is an overemphasis on stating the obvious, such as that the second Chamber must neither usurp nor threaten the supremacy of the first Chamber. "Translated" into "Blair-speak", that simply points to a reduction in the existing powers of the second Chamber. However, even now, the powers of the second Chamber permit only a token delay, but it can, of course, be troublesome to an arrogant government displaying dictatorial tendencies if this House draws public attention to something that it believes to be wrong.
Perhaps I may refer to the Weatherill proposals. No one has really had an opportunity to examine the small print; some would say, "not even the large print". Why is there apparently the proposal to retain 91 hereditary Peers? Why 91? The principle has been conceded, so why not 151 or 131, which would allow a place and a role for some of the part-time Parliamentarians, the importance of which is cogently outlined by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in the interesting paper which he recently circulated? I saw my noble friend in his place a few moments ago, and he will no doubt elaborate on that later.
One weakness of the Weatherill ideas, which my noble friend's proposals would avoid, is that the media would surely have a field day at the spectacle of unelected legislators electing some from among themselves as future legislators. That would open the House to ridicule and could produce very odd results and be divisive. I am afraid that it must be said that if hereditary Peers are wrong, as according to this Government they are, then they are all wrong. That is the logic of the Government's proposals.
The Weatherill proposals could unwittingly prove a trap as, once enacted, there might be little incentive by either side to proceed further with any urgency. The Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers might well be inclined to feel that as at least the nucleus of their hereditary Peers remains, so why tempt providence with a full reform? Likewise, the Government might well feel that having got rid of 90 per cent. of hereditary Peers, it would be best to avoid getting bogged down in endless discussions and controversy over the perhaps not very amenable conclusions of the Royal Commission. Therefore, it is possible that instead of a bad Bill being made slightly less bad, a bad Bill could be made even worse.
In many ways, I think that the best solution is that proposed by my noble friend Lord Windlesham and others. I refer to the proposal to pass in this Session a Bill ending the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and to vote, but for the commencement of the Act not to take place until the Royal Commission has reported and legislation is introduced to establish a fully reformed Chamber. Most importantly, that would give the Government a real incentive to get on and to implement the findings of the Royal Commission.

905
The Royal Commission has been set a tight and strict timetable. It is to be hoped that it will not be too hedged in by hints and strictures about what the Government would like—obviously, that is a largely nominated House, with even fewer powers than now. A largely nominated House would be a House with too many cronies—not just Tony's cronies, but William's cronies, Paddy's cronies and, dare I say it although it is absolute sacrilege to suggest it, there may even be one or two cronies of the noble Lord the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers.
If hereditary Peers are to go and if any full reform is to make any sense at all, the main defects of the existing House—its lack of legitimacy and its inability to exert its powers—must require a relatively high proportion of elected Members, either elected directly or at least by one of the more open forms of PR as opposed to the totalitarian closed list so beloved of this Government. A token 10 or 20 per cent. would not do; 50 per cent. probably would. A further advantage of an elected element is that it would provide a means for younger members to enter a reformed House. That is most important. Such a second Chamber could hardly contribute a threat to any normal government. But of course, the present Government are not a normal government. They have marginalised and diminished the other place almost to vanishing point—all the more reason for the Royal Commission to apply itself to determining an appropriate form of election for part of the second Chamber. The nominated part of the House should be able to include most of the existing life Peers who wish to remain, and would thus provide continuity.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I telephoned the Government Whips' Office on Friday to say that I would not be speaking in this debate but obviously the message did not get through and, as my name remains on the list of speakers, perhaps I had better make one or two brief remarks.
I sincerely hope that the transitional House will not continue for long and that the Royal Commission will come up with proposals that will be acceptable to most people and to most of the political parties. I hope that the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament will agree to proposals that can achieve a consensus. This is a most difficult problem and I do not envy my noble friend Lord Wakeham, who is the chairman of the Royal Commission, or the other members of it.
With reference to the phrase in the White Paper that a reformed second Chamber will make government better, perhaps I may point out that governments are there to govern and that legislators in both Houses are there to legislate. In our system, the majority party in the House of Commons supports the Government. Therefore, the Government must have their way, as they must in this House also.
I hope that the composition and the powers that are finally agreed for this House will enable the second Chamber to have the legitimacy and the authority to oppose measures which come from the House of
906
Commons, which is heavily Whipped. This House as presently constituted is very good at revising legislation, especially on small, detailed measures, but it has neither the legitimacy nor the authority to oppose the Government on major measures. If necessary, the Parliament Acts could be invoked to overturn the situation.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the attractive layout and mainly moderate language of the White Paper conceal a number of arguable propositions. Foremost among them is the assertion on page 5 of the document that there is in this country now,
"a clear appetite for change",
by which is meant an appetite for radical constitutional change. That may be true for Scotland, but I submit that it is not true for Great Britain as a whole. Here I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Our tradition is one of gradual change—evolution not revolution. Indeed, the White Paper itself concedes (in the last paragraph of Chapter 3) that the House of Lords has already "changed significantly" in the course of this century, to the extent that many of the criticisms justifiably levelled at it in earlier years are no longer valid. Because of our tradition of gradualism, it is by no means impossible that the Royal Commission could decide that the nation would be best served by a slightly modified version of the status quo.
Therefore, to proceed with stage one in the manner proposed could, effectively, pre-empt the commission's findings. This, together with the fact that stage two is now scheduled to come into effect much sooner than appeared to be the case when we last debated the matter, is another reason for having second thoughts about stage one. "But what about Labour's manifesto commitment?", someone may demand—to which I would reply that no one with a shred of intellectual honesty could seriously contend that more than a tiny fraction of the very small proportion of the electorate who ever read party manifestos from cover to cover voted Labour purely because of the promise to abolish the voting and speaking rights of the hereditary Peers as soon as possible.
However, that is not to argue against some interim changes pending the report of the Royal Commission. A great many hereditary Peers in all quarters of the House, most notably and recently the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, speaking earlier this afternoon, have for long expressed disquiet about the "backwoodsmen" having the right to vote, as distinct from the right to speak. In addition, I have for long felt that Back-Bench hereditary Peers should be strongly discouraged from taking any party Whip, unless they happen to be strongly committed already to any one or other political party. If changes in those two spheres alone had been implemented 20-odd years ago, we should have been spared the appalling spectacle of dozens of backwoodsmen being dragooned in to vote, for the most part reluctantly, for contentious legislation introduced by the previous administration—episodes which did so

907
much harm to the reputation of the House of Lords in general and to the reputation of the hereditary peerage in particular.
However, culling the backwoodsmen, metaphorically speaking of course, and depoliticising the bulk of the remainder of the hereditary peerage, would not be quite sufficient. Although a Labour Government's defeats by the inbuilt Conservative majority in this House are almost invariably quickly reversed and rarely delay Bills for more than a fortnight, they are undoubtedly an irritant: they offend Labour's amour proper, and I can well understand why the Government demand changes. But I submit that this problem could be tackled in one of three ways, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The first option is to limit the voting rights of hereditaries to the 160-odd who are regular attenders. The second option would be to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in a very well-thought-out submission, whereby all hereditaries would be debarred from voting on the later stages of government Bills. No doubt we will hear something about this from the noble Lord later this evening. The third option would be to adopt essentially the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to remove voting but not speaking rights from all hereditary Peers. The first option probably does not go far enough; the third would seem to go needlessly far. However, the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—or some variation of it—would surely meet all Labour's legitimate grievances, pending the implementation of stage two.
Why do I suggest that the Royal Commission might recommend some variation of the status quo, as opposed to radical reform? First, because reading through the White Paper one is struck by the fact that this House, as at present constituted, does just what the Government expect of it in terms of thoroughly scrutinising legislation, and so on, at least 90 per cent. of the time. However illogical its composition may be, the place works.
Secondly, let us consider the alternatives. An all-nominated House. consisting mainly of "the great and the good" would be excessively elitist. Conversely, a directly-elected House would be subject to the same tabloid pressures as the House of Commons, with all that that entails in terms of hastily-introduced panic legislation. Clashes between the directly-elected Lords and the directly-elected Commons would replicate clashes between the United States Senate and the House of Representatives.
What about a House that is half directly elected and half nominated? That would evoke the same sort of response from this Government as we have had where hereditary Peers are concerned; for example, statements to the effect that, "The Government would have won such and such a Division by 29 votes had it not been for the wretched undemocratically nominated Peers".
As for indirect elections, here I have to disagree most strongly with my noble friend Lord Walton. Indirect elections would be dangerously corporatist and liable to produce the same sort of result as we saw in Wales the day before yesterday, where the will of the individual voter was overridden by the will of the institutions.
908
I turn finally to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; that is to say, the 30-something Lord Strathclyde to whom I, too, offer my congratulations today. As my noble friend Lord Weatherill, with his enormous experience in both Houses, has often reminded us: the House of Commons needs reforming far more than the House of Lords. One of the main problems in the other place is that there are far too many office-holders—paid and unpaid, actual and aspiring. Only two or three dozen individualists from both major parties who are content to remain Back Benchers almost in perpetuity can afford to be mavericks, or thorns in the flesh of authority. Therefore, much of the burden of challenging the executive must continue to be borne by this House, which, for obvious reasons, contains far fewer politically ambitious individuals than the House of Commons. For that reason alone, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should be supported tomorrow.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by joining with other noble Lords in wishing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde a very happy birthday. I should also like to assure him that, if he presses his amendment tomorrow, I shall join him in the Lobby.
The timing of the debate is a little unusual--as, indeed, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, pointed out—in that it has already reached the Committee stage in the other place, while we are still considering the White Paper. However, in some ways that is an advantage because it gives us an insight into how the other place views the landscape. If I may, that is a subject to which I shall return a little later.
The fact that our constitution is unwritten is its enduring strength; but in times of a mad dash for change or, to use the current spin word, "modernisation", it is also its weakness. I say this because the sum of our constitutional elements intertwine in ways which cannot always be foreseen. If change is embarked upon with all the enthusiasm that those opposite would wish, there is little doubt that it will take us in unpredictable directions. Constitutional changes already enacted by this Government bear witness to that fact.
I am one of those who believe that the removal of the hereditary Peers will undoubtedly weaken the position of our sovereign and once that delicate balance has been removed, or tinkered with, who can predict what an over-mighty executive with a tendency to bypass Parliament might take it upon itself to do? We should be under no illusion that the monarchy is under very real threat. We cannot, and indeed should not, anticipate the outcome of the Royal Commission, but one proposal gaining ground is a part elected, or even a fully elected Upper House. It is suggested that we might have regionally elected Members of your Lordships' House and that this would include representatives possibly from Scotland and Wales. I find this somewhat confusing because the Government are embarking on a policy of ceding power to the regions by setting up unicameral parliaments and assemblies and then apparently hoping for elections to take place in those

909
very same regions for membership to this House which is part of a bicameral system. I find the logic of this slightly difficult to follow.
I do not think there is much doubt that the majority of the public favour the retention of a bicameral system at Westminster but getting rid of the hereditary Peers without knowing what you are eventually going to land up with is the first step along a road which, in my view, jeopardises the very future of this system. If any of your Lordships doubt what I am saying, I pray in aid a speech made in another place when the Bill received its Second Reading. I quote from the speech of the honourable Member for Medway, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, who stated,
"My reservation about the Bill is that it is far too long. The single important clause reads:
'No one shall be a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage'.
I should prefer a shorter Bill, which would read:
'No one shall be a Member of the House of Lords'.
If that is felt to be too succinct I would be prepared to widen it so that it read:
'No one shall be a Member of the House of Lords or anything remotely like it".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/99; col. 777.]
I hope that I do not test the patience of your Lordships too long. However, I wish to quote further. At col. 777 he went on to say,
"Hon. Members will understand that I wish to come out and reveal myself to be an unashamed, intractable, practising unicameralist. I suspect that when the second Great Reform Bill comes to be debated... the Government will discover that many others will come out and reveal themselves to be intractable and practising unicameralists".
I think that noble Lords will have got the general flavour of those remarks. They are views which all Members of your Lordships' House should take careful note of because they do not seem to accord with the White Paper which states on the first page,
"The Government is committed to improving the effectiveness and balance of the House of Lords, with the aim of it playing a full and proper part in Parliament".
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said today that we should not give ground to unicameralists. I entirely agree with her, but can she control her party? When I first came to your Lordships' House 30 years ago at the age of 24 I was quite possibly the youngest Peer to sit and I was in much need of wise counsel from my elders and betters. There is one anecdote which stands out in my mind at that time. It was the occasion when the Chief Whip of my party, the late lamented Lord St. Aldwyn, spoke to me about what "taking the Whip" entailed in your Lordships' House. His words to me went roughly like this, "If you come to this House because of a party Whip and you do not sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate, then we would expect you to vote with the party. But if you listen to the arguments in the Chamber and, in all conscience, you do not feel able to vote with the party, then you should vote with your conscience". I tell that anecdote simply because I believe that this great privilege which fell by accident of birth upon my shoulders carries with it some responsibilities and duties. The advice I received at that time has, I believe, helped me to discharge those.
910
Having the luxury of being true to oneself is a rare commodity in politics. I only hope that I have not tested the patience of my Front Bench too much at times when my conscience has parted with that of my party. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is not present, can accept what I say because I know that it runs somewhat counter to the remarks he made during the humble Address last year. I tell this story simply because I fear that if the future membership of your Lordships' House goes down the electoral route, the power of the party Whips will increase, to say nothing of the pressures which might come from certain powerful minorities in the electorate, which those elected are serving, and the conscience vote will become a rare thing indeed. This House will be in danger of becoming simply a shadow of the other place.
On the subject of an elected, or part elected, upper House, I have another fear and that is election fatigue of the electorate. The British public currently have to—or perhaps I should say are invited—turn out for general elections, county council elections, local parish elections and European elections. In the future they are apparently to be asked to turn out for House of Lords or senate elections. We already know that the turnout for European elections is around 30 per cent. or less and may well fall further this year as a result of the ill-advised closed list system. Voter fatigue is a very real possibility.
I should now like to turn to the value-for-money question. Despite the relatively large numbers in our House, compared with any other upper house around the world, it provides extraordinarily good value. We operate at one-tenth of the cost of the House of Commons which costs in the region of £200 million per year. This will change if and when elected members arrive here. Salaries and not just expenses will be demanded, if not offered. Better office accommodation will be needed together with facilities for research workers, secretaries, etc. How long will it be before another ludicrously expensive office building similar to that over Westminster underground station is being built at a cost of over £250 million? I believe many people in our country care very much about these things and question whether we either need or want this added cost of government. But we are told that reform is coming and that a Royal Commission has been set up to report by the end of the year. That being the case, why on earth cannot the British people have the opportunity of examining the findings of that Royal Commission before the hereditary Peers have been removed? This is an action like joining the euro—there will be no turning back—so let us be sure that we fully understand the consequences of our actions.
I, like many of my noble friends, plead for nothing more than the chance to see what the Royal Commission proposes, and provided that it can be seen to be a sound method of good governance in a bicameral system, pass muster with the Select Committee, and avoid the political long grass—that is an important factor—I shall walk away from this House without a backward glance. It is simply that I see it as my duty not to walk away with the job unfinished. That would seem to me to be nothing less than irresponsible behaviour.

911
I support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in asking even at this late stage for no stage one without stage two. I hope that the Royal Commission can manage the near impossible task of reporting by the end of the year because that might, just might, make it possible for that to happen. A system which has lasted for over 700 years and which by and large has served this country well should not be torn apart without seeing what will follow in its place.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, there are few Members of your Lordships' House who would still champion the right of hereditary Peers to block, change and approve the passage of Bills into law. Such arrangement is no longer acceptable in democratic society. Yet democracy itself ensures the sanctity of individual and personal rights.
My circumstance as a hereditary Peer is not based on any social or political view, but as a claimant of those individual and personal rights under law, in this House and Parliament, granted by Letters Patent.
I stand in this Chamber because I have sworn the Oath of Allegiance and because I have a right to a seat, a place and a voice in the parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom, according to Letters Patent, which are not revocable by Parliament or any other authority in this state. There are other solutions to reform than that which the House of Lords Bill proposes. In considering that Bill I ask, with respect, that this House and the Government look most carefully at the origins of Parliament's legislative authority and that of the Crown. Parliament's power lies in those twin pillars which uphold the British constitution called custom and convention, the greatest and most powerful example of which exists in the very process by which Parliament passes Bills into laws. Parliament's power to do this is founded entirely on the authority of customary practice. There is no statute of parliament that enacts this power. It is a power derived from custom and convention in our constitution, and conventions are law.
The rights of hereditary Peers are created by Letters Patent, which confer upon them the right to "hold and possess a seat, place and voice" in Parliament. At the time of its creation, this right is personal to the appointed. Peer. Constitutionally, the Royal prerogative cannot be waived.
But all Peers also have rights acquired by custom. By denying the hereditary Peers their customary rights the Government deny the validity of customary law. A Government can do this only by using the same customary power that they use to create statutes which authority they now deny with this Bill. To remove rights acquired by custom--even using a customary power—is not lawful.
All Peers have property rights in this House. These rights have been established over the centuries—certainly from before legal memory. Such rights are firmly established in the common laws of England, and I refer the House to them. As a Peer, I have the customary personal right to enter this palace, enter this Chamber, to sit and speak in it. this is a custom that has existed
912
from time immemorial, without interruption, within this place, and has the force of law. This right by custom is a principle of English property law. To abolish this right is to attack custom in our laws, and particularly in our laws of property. A Government who claim that they have a mandate to abolish customary property laws, under a cloak of greater democracy, are as despotic as the one that imposed, without consent, a tax on windows, and so should be opposed.
Each Peer can pursue and protect his personal right to attend this place. Each is entitled to use whatever lawful means he has, with the same vigour as he would to preserve his customary right to walk across his neighbour's field to attend church, or to land his fishing nets on another's beach, where that has been done by custom from time immemorial. This is established law.
I draw your Lordships' attention also to the human rights issues presented by the Government's Bill. The Government have stated their purpose as being a constitutional and a democratic reform. However, the Government also clearly state a political motive; that is, "to remove an embedded Conservative majority." That is a political objective, not a constitutional reform. In that context, may I draw your Lordships' interest to the case of the Turkish Communist Party, decided in 1996 by the European Court of Human Rights? This decision protects a political group (even an embedded one) from exclusion, even if its "activities" are regarded by national authorities as undermining constitutional structures of the state. Such law protects the rights of all, regardless of their politics.
Would the exclusion of a so-called embedded Conservative majority from the parliamentary process be lawful under the human rights treaty and laws? It has yet to be explained why the Bill states that it complies with human rights laws. The legality of statutes passed in such circumstances may be questioned.
As with many features of our constitution, there is a compromise between defending democratic rights and individual property and other rights. Thus, I claim my right to attend and sit in this House, a right established by Letters Patent and by custom according to the laws of property of this state. I have this customary right under the same custom and practice as does Parliament to pass laws by three readings in each House and with the Royal Assent.
I propose a compromise—that is, not to claim my right to have my vote counted. May I also propose that the Government agree to a constitutional convention with hereditary Peers? As an interim measure, at least, the hereditary Peers would continue to vote, but agree that their votes would not he counted in the process of determining the passage of Bills or the procedures of this House. Their property rights to attend, sit and debate would remain intact under customary law.
Finally, some questions need to be answered. Is not the Government's proposal for reform of this House—being an attempt to abrogate laws established by custom and enforced by the courts—also a denial of the very basis of Parliament's power? By what other authority does Parliament enact laws, other than by the practice

913
of customary law and convention? Does not this Westminster Parliament undermine its own sovereign powers by abrogating customary laws and rights?
I propose that it would be far better to agree a convention of our constitution by which hereditary Peers accept that their votes are not counted in the making of Parliamentary rules and laws. Do not conventions have the power and effect of law in our constitution? This issue is a matter of the state, the Crown, the constitution and its customary laws. Must it be set about by politics and partisan vengeance? It is best resolved by convention and not by statute, the authority of which would be questionable and challenged. Our individual and personal rights are the basis not the result of our democracy and constitution.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, this is the last legitimate chance that I as an hereditary Peer will have to talk about the future of your Lordships' House. Once we start discussing the Bill, then that will be the remit, not the long-term future of the Upper House within the government of Great Britain.
It seems very sad to me that this is happening at all. We are, after all, only law revisers; we are the insurance policy that the law being introduced by the other place will work. Nearly all of the amendments passed in this House are accepted in the other place. Surely we have proved ourselves over the years as both reliable and sensible. But it is very important that we, the hereditary Peers, must not be seen to be fighting for our future and our future alone. We must be seen to be fighting for the good governance of this country.
As I see it, there are only two options for the second Chamber in a modern Britain: keep it the same or change it entirely and elect it. Any mix, as has been suggested, of elected and appointed leads to two classes of Peer. We have never had that in your Lordships' House up until now, and a very good thing too.
The Government seem to prefer a selected House. The reasons for that are fairly obvious: first, the strength of the Lords increases proportionately with the demise of each hereditary Peer or with the election of any new Peer; secondly, as a consequence of that increase in power, the power of the other place diminishes. So the Government seem to favour a selected House, over which control can be kept as its Members will be beholden to the patronage of someone—not necessarily the Prime Minister, but someone.
Patronage must be unhealthy; it must lead to the stifling of personal thought and to consideration of things other than good, conscientious governance. Although it could be said that the first hereditary Peer received his title as a result of patronage, this cannot be said of any of the inheritors; they are not beholden to anyone but themselves. Packing the House with party friendly Lords can never be considered to be correct form nor to provide good governance in this day and age.
The White Paper reviles the hereditary principle. As I have said before in this House, it is practised the world over in every walk of life—by the unions, by the
914
workers and by everybody. There is nothing that says that your children will be a clone of yourself. We all think for ourselves and vote accordingly.
I would venture to say that if this Government were to stay in power for 10 to 15 years many of the next generation of hereditary Peers would support them. I may take the Conservative Whip, but the records will show that I have often voted against that Whip or abstained on a matter of principle. I am proud to be independent of mind in my dealings in your Lordships' House.
It is this one subject of getting rid of the hereditary peerage that shows this Government as being biased, bigoted and old Labour in thinking. That is shown in capital letters by the insistence that the hereditary Peer, once ousted, will lose his "club" rights. All former MPs enjoy those rights and I fail to see why the hereditary Peer who has served his or her country very well over the years for little or no pay should have those privileges removed as well. It is spiteful and vindictive and, frankly, not worthy of the many noble Lords I have come to know and like on the Government Benches. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.
So strong is the determination to get rid of the hereditary Peers from the Upper House that we are to be unceremoniously dispatched within a few weeks of the Royal Commission reporting. Surely, when we are trying to ensure good governance and the sensible study of all the alternatives for a second Chamber for this country in the 21st century, we should not do the job piecemeal and within small parameters, which might suit the government of the day of any political persuasion but not the future superlative government of Britain. This Royal Commission is being asked to do a rushed job on a vital subject, with the status quo not being an option. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House stated in an answer to my noble friend Lord Chesham that there was no need for an hereditary Peer to be on the commission as the idea was to get rid of them. That begs two questions.
First, even if we accept the premise, it does not answer why, with all the experience of Parliament at its feet, an hereditary was not asked to give his or her views from inside the commission rather than from the outside. Secondly, who is to say that the commission will not decide to go for an elected House as its preferred option, in which case, working on the same principle, why are there only life Peers on the commission?
Unless the commission is thought to be a stitch up, we must be careful to allow it to consider all the options available, not just those which suit the Government. How can it report sensibly until such time as it sees the results of the Government's devolution plans? That is yet another issue where I, as a devolutionist, do not sit necessarily very comfortably within the Conservative Party of old. The devolution settlement will change the whole governance of this country. How can we change the upper House's constitution at a time when the whole governance of the country is changing more radically than in any period before? We will probably have representatives from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament in a new upper

915
House. What will be the role of this new House; and, very importantly, how will it fit into a workable balance with the other place? We do not know. We are charging on with the bigoted first stage when we should be considering the vital second or third stages at the same time.
I do not like the Weatherill agreement. I do not like it because it has to a large extent removed the fight of the hereditary Peer to ensure the future good governance of our country into a concentration on which of us is going to stay in your Lordships' House. We hear rumours that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip, who I am pleased to see in his place, has a wish list of preferred hereditary Peers. We hear rumours that the 91 will be selected by each party machine. We hear rumours of elections by everyone from each party or just by the hereditary Peers themselves, but we do not know. Who will decide who the replacements will be should any of those elected—or, even more frighteningly, selected—unfortunately die in the intervening period between stages one and two? Will those 91 hereditary Peers be made life Peers after stage two? All noble Lords in this House are equal and yet now we have a division of life Peer and hereditary Peer.
Many government supporters will vote for the Weatherill amendment as they have begun to think about their own position once the reform process is started and gets into gear, while many of my party will vote against the amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I think the vote will be very close. If the Government are to create sufficient Peers to counter the increased number of Conservative hereditary Peers under the agreement, then surely they will inherit a large majority when stage two arrives and the 91 are thanked for their help in the transitional House and patted on the back as they leave. But I say, "Beware life Peers", because it is as obvious as the nose on my face—and that is very obvious—that we are moving to an elected second Chamber long term or a unicameral system. Either way the end is nigh for the tried and tested system that has been in place for centuries. And what about the much vaunted and rumoured upper age limit? There are too many questions and not enough answers.
Your Lordships' House was set up by the hereditary peerage and it was not until the late 1950s that the life Peers were invented. It has taken a very short time historically for them to Veni, vidi, vici— I came, I saw, I conquered. We are living in changing times. Before the hereditary Peers go—I feel that the country will regret that decision before we are too much older—we should do two things. First, we should change the name of your Lordships' House to something less evocative of times gone by. We should change it to the Senate or something similar. Secondly, we should insist that the ultimate right of appeal in law is to the Law Lords and not to the House of Lords.
Since coming to your Lordships' House I have seen how it works and have been very impressed. I have met many wonderful people and I have many new interests. It does not matter what specialised knowledge you have. There are at least six other noble Lords who know as
916
much or more about the subject than you do. What other system could possibly fill this upper Chamber with so much expertise?
If I do not make the cut. I will miss this place. I will miss it for its wisdom, its grandeur and its good governance. I have come to admire it for its cheapness to run in comparison with the other place or the European Parliament. I will ponder whether a system that has served this country so well really deserves to be finished and cast to one side in such a cavalier fashion.
More and more the country is becoming aware of the good job done in this House. A good, sound. cheap, albeit anachronistic, upper House it is defendable on its own record of being a standard bearer of good governance. I will continue to fight for that good and informed governance with every breath left in my body for as long as I am allowed into this august Chamber. That is what we should all be seeking to ensure for the people of this country. Yes, change your Lordships' House, but let us do it correctly when we do it and let us do it in a structured and thoughtful way.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, to use a seasonal metaphor, if our constitution took the form of an apple tree, the Government would be stuck in its branches with pruning saw and secateurs. The proposed reforms would be like removing one of the principal boughs and grafting on a completely new variety. f accept that the bough may be unsteady and ultimately has to go, but not before the alternative growth has been fully planned and nurtured. I do not accept the assumption that all the canker is on only one side of the tree. It all needs pruning. There is plenty of opportunity for new growth if, as in the case of this House, the Government resist its root and branch critics and continue to preserve what is good and take great care not to lose the tree altogether.
I am another of those who cannot understand why the Government could not bring forward their options at the very beginning. I regret that a misreading of the manifesto—a false assumption that the people of this country wanted to do away with part of our constitution before the whole had even been discussed—has brought us to the position we are in today. I nevertheless welcome the White Paper even though it is thin on policy. It is long overdue. At last we have the promised options paper which looks forward to stage two and provides a clear set of guidelines for the Royal Commission. I am relieved., perhaps with the right reverend Prelate, that the Bishops are secure and that along with other Cross-Benchers they will represent other faiths. I am surprised that there is not more attention to gender balance in the House, particularly in view of the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we are going to see an emasculated House—perhaps she did not mean that. I am sorry that the previous government in 18 years did not make more effort to prepare for change—which was inevitable because of their majority—because it would have ensured greater

917
consensus today. The removal of the hereditary Peers is nevertheless a clear manifesto pledge, although no one would have voted for limbo or an interim House.
This should be an historic time, yet there is a lot of confusion here and in another place. If you listen to debates there, as I have, you have the feeling that there is no real heart in it or understanding of the value of this House or of the longer-term issues involved. That is a real disappointment to those like myself who are in principle in favour of reform beyond the abolition stage. We expected something better, and in the end perhaps we got no more than could be expected of the ordinary mortals that parliamentarians are.
Some Members of Parliament and some areas of the media have rubbished hereditary Peers during the recent debates. That is to be expected, but it is worth restating to them that those who have survived years of uncertainty have performed a valuable service over many years and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, generously said, in some cases they have made an outstanding contribution to this House without either public recognition or reward.
We have heard a lot of complaints from hereditary Peers already. I shall try to turn my own into more positive suggestions. I would personally apply a test of attendance to the present list of hereditary Peers rather than retain a strict 10 per cent. quota, because under the amendment we should lose a number of valuable Members who have done service for 10 or more years and it is folly to sacrifice them in advance of any serious proposals by the Royal Commission. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was hinting at that.
I also recognise the realpolitik behind the amendment that the Government are impatient to get something done. I should make it clear that while I am not committed to the Cross-Bench amendment, I very reluctantly support the ultimate demise of the hereditary element to which I belong.
I am conscious that at least 11 generations of my family have been in this House, and I feel fortunate—especially as my father was a reluctant MP turned Peer who decided to give up his seat here (mistakenly) in 1964—to have been present up to the final moment of execution.
As a Cross-Bencher I have come to value the role of independent Peers, who not only hold the balance but are now the obvious way out of the Government's impasse. I should like to make only three points. First, I am pleased to see in the White Paper that there will be a strong guarantee of an independent group in a reformed House, as was stated in the manifesto, and that that will in future come through the new appointments commission. Paragraph 6.9 states that,
"Cross Benchers will become more important".
With that phrase, have the Government not decided to anticipate the decision of the Royal Commission in favouring a mixed or largely unelected Chamber? I feel rather sorry for the Government. They need more encouragement in their battle over patronage, and I suggest to them that they should make even more of the
918
independent element than they have as a means of resisting party patronage and of representing a wider section of society. Why not enlarge the proportion of independents among the life Peers? That would be an ideal way of preserving the best of this House and resisting any pretence of democracy in competition with the other place. This is a revising Chamber, not a people's Chamber. If we want more genuine democracy let us try and reform the House of Commons, as others have said, to check the executive rather than create a monster to compete with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, ably put it.
This is where I part company with the Liberals and some Conservatives (who have made an elected Chamber a ploy) and others who seem to think that we could imitate the US system. I am certain that we should aim for continuity, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, wisely said, and the preservation of the best that this House can already offer. I do not, by the way, think that quotas of MEPs and regional Peers will work very well in practice.
Secondly, one consequence of removing hereditary Peers may be the loss of a wide range of interests, including significant minority interests and, along with that, a degree of voluntary commitment. Is it possible to retain the spirit of personal commitment in a reformed House? I put that question to the Chief Whip. The range of non-political interests is another strength of the present House, recognised in the "mixed Chamber" in chapter 8 of the White Paper.
I suggest that more formal consultation of interest groups is a safer way than the Irish model of indirect election through "functional constituencies"—a phrase I have never heard before—referred to in paragraph 8.10 on page 44.
I support this modified version of a nominated chamber, but it will only be easily understood by the country at large if there are more established procedures before consultation. The new commission should be able to make these more transparent in possibly an extended version of the present Honours List.
Finally, I hope that the Royal Commission will consider the question of compensation very carefully. To some people, "working Peers" means full-time, paid professional working Peers. Is it necessary to see the revising Chamber as a full-time fully paid professional House? It has been said many times that Peers' outside interests lend this House its distinctive non-party political character. I hope that the commission will do everything to maintain these interests and the quality of debate in which both hereditary and life Peers currently share their individual and personal experience without becoming a "House of brains".
W. S. Gilbert, appropriately enough, had something to say about this in "Iolanthe":
"I don't want to say a word against brains. I have a great respect for brains. But with the House of Peers composed exclusively o people of intellect, what's to become of the House of Commons?".
What indeed!

919
While respecting the will of the electorate, I hope that we shall not pander to any false sense of democracy in this House which will compete with another place and, worst of all, sacrifice the advantages and standards that have been developed in this place over centuries.
7.56 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Government have taken upon themselves a daunting task: to reform one of the most historic and stable political institutions that the world has known. There are many on this side of the House who could echo the Prime Minister's words in his introduction to the White Paper when he calls this House,
"a secondary Parliamentary chamber which is less good than It could be".
The problem is that the initial stage of the route that he has chosen will not really make it any better, and might possibly make it worse.
My noble friend. Lord Wakeham, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, described the Government's programme as one leading to the most radical constitutional change known this century. In a recent publication by Professor Robert Hazell of London University on the future of the constitution, he isolates five separate constitutional initiatives by this Government. From those have emanated 16 constitutional Bills since the Government have been in power. The Government may have an idea of what they intend with each one, but each change will have repercussions on the others, as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. I do not see how the Government can maintain that this is a step-by-step approach. So far as I can understand it, this is the "Big Bang.' approach, but somewhat lacking in the omniscient mind which we trust accompanied the first Big Bang which brought the world into being.
If there are any noble Lords present who feel themselves at war with history—there is perhaps a slight emptiness on the other side of the Chamber—I crave their indulgence for a moment as I try to enlarge the historical perspective in which we are considering this change.
As mentioned in the White Paper, our present institution can be traced back to the Saxon witenagemot. The names of some of those who are still represented here by their English titles echo down the centuries. But entwined with this whole institution at Westminster are also the successors of Scotland's Three Estates, the Parliament of Scotland, which was joined with it in 1707. It was as representing one of those three estates that my family first came into your Lordships' House. In my family's achievements we can only claim to have become Lords of the Scottish Parliament in 1445, which was when the title was inaugurated, although we can measure our involvement in the affairs of Scotland for some 300 years before that. Even so, when it comes to titles of antiquity there cannot be many in your Lordships' House who can claim the antiquity of the title of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which again is a Scottish title. The original Earldom was granted to the 13 Celtic rulers or mormaors at the introduction of
920
feudalism to Scotland. The first appears in a charter of 1115, but that was merely as a substitute for their more antique titles.
Only recently the uniqueness of the element was somewhat lost by the removal of the need for the election of Scottish representative Peers by the 1963 Act. The present Bill not only removes the right of all hereditary Peers to be represented in this House, but it also removes the present claim by which representatives of Scotland can sit in your Lordships' House as of right.
I note that in their considerations for the further reform of this House, at paragraph 7.22, the Government are suggesting re-introducing the representatives of one other Estate of the old Scottish parliament, and that is the Church of Scotland. I heard that this was proposed under the original settlement in 1707, but it was turned down by the churchmen as they were to be few in number and a Church which prided itself in equality could not countenance such preferment. I hope that the Government have thought of an answer and that a more satisfactory outcome will be found to the present suggestion.
On the winding up of the Scottish Parliament Lord Seafield bewailed it as, "ane end of ane auld sang". It seems to me that what we are now looking at is the end of the final reprise. I am interested to see that in paragraph 5.16 the Government, after consultation, propose that the Royal Peers should surrender their hereditary rights to sit and vote in this House. I wonder how much consideration has been given to the fact, with which some of your Lordships are probably very familiar, that there is a pair of titles which are in use by the Royal Family created by letters patent which are life peerages; namely, the Prince of Wales and the noble Earl, Lord Chester. Of course, these are not life peerages created under the 1958 Act, like those of a great many noble Lords sitting in the Chamber here. But if it was so desired it would surely be perfectly just and possible that the rights of such titles could remain as long as they do for the rest of the life Peers.
It is perhaps understandable that the Government have proposed that hereditary Peers be removed from this Chamber, but I am interested to know whether the even more radical reform is envisaged which removes all the rights of the Monarchy to attend this House on anything other than the most formal occasion. In this most civilised age no one here is approaching the prospect of being hung, drawn and quartered, but as there is such determination in the Government to see this as the end of an era, I am reminded of the last lines penned by my ancestor the first Marquis of Montrose as he contemplated his execution. They conclude:
"Scatter my ashes, throw them in the air.
Lord since thou knowest where all these atoms are
I'm hopeful, once thou'lt recollect my dust
And confident thou'lt raise me with the just".
8.3 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. His name certainly echoes down the centuries in Scottish history. I am very glad to be following him.

921
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that some time ago White Papers were white. This one is not white at all and resembles a travel brochure. When one opens it one finds that, instead of an attractively posed lady in a bikini next to a swimming pool, one is faced with a photograph of the Prime Minister in his shirt sleeves. In fact, most of the White Paper resembles a travel firm's brochure. It is mainly waffle interspersed with some useful information to which I shall come later.
I have thought a great deal about the subject of this White Paper over the years. I have concluded as a first principle that nothing that can be suggested in the matter of the radical reform of this House—and it is that with which we are faced—will be better than the present situation. The non-radical reforms that suggest themselves to me are simple and would effectively rid us of the phenomenon of one party having an unassailable majority on certain occasions, as has happened in the past. One such reform would be to deprive noble Lords of the vote unless they had attended some proportion—one-third, one-half or whatever—of the sittings in the previous Sessions. They could come to speak, because one does not have to come here continuously to make a valuable contribution on something about which one knows.
When I consider the situation of the hereditary peerage at the present time I am struck by the fact, as was my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that we are condemned by many, including Her Majesty's Government, not for what we have done, but for who we are. There have been unpleasant precedents in the past over that. The position of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s comes to mind and, of course, some people in Ulster think it is all right to condemn a man or woman on the grounds of his or her religion. We also have ethnic cleansing taking place at present. I realise that these are extreme examples, but I believe that they are relevant to some extent.
I refer your Lordships to the concluding remarks of Mrs. Beckett, the Leader of the House of Commons, in her speech of 1st February. She said,
"Almost all those people"
that is the hereditary Peers—
"are men; almost all are white; most have little, if any, experience of school, health care or housing in common with most of their fellow countrymen and countrywomen. Like everyone else, they have a place in our national life, but it is not in our Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/99; col. 616.]
How kind of her! What an extraordinary statement for the Leader of the House of Commons to make! Where does she think that most of us have been these past many years—in my case 72 years? Does she believe that we have been living on the moon or perhaps in some great country house or palace shielded by hordes of retainers and servants? If this is government thinking, I can tell them who needs to be modernised. Have not government Ministers heard about death duties—those penal taxes so merrily exacted by previous Labour and, I have to say, Conservative governments? Do they think that the past 50 to 60 years have changed nothing?
922
And, of course, we are mostly white, but that is hardly surprising. Most Members of the present South African Parliament are black, which is something that the Labour Party has long striven to achieve and which, no doubt, is correct. I know of none of my ancestors who came from anywhere but these islands, but does that really disqualify me? If there are not enough representatives of ethnic minorities in this House—and that may or may not be the case—the Government have the simple remedy of appointing them. I certainly would not object. But to suggest that being white and male is a disqualification for sitting in this House is certainly objectionable.
I can tell your Lordships about health, schools and housing, which the right honourable Member of another place imagines the hereditary Peers know nothing about, but in a long debate I do not wish to weary your Lordships except to say that I know as much or as little about these subjects as anyone else who has had the privilege of living in this country for most of his or her working life.
I return to the White Paper. It is difficult to read as most of it, as I say, is waffle. So I shall skip that and come to the actual information it contains. On page 14 is set out the numbers of Peers. It gives the number of hereditary Peers as 750. Of that number nearly 200 have never attended the House and 56 are on leave of absence, which, according to my arithmetic, which is not very good, leaves 504 which is fewer than the 510 life Peers. Of the hereditary Peers, 67 per cent. attended for less than one-third of the sittings. That leaves 168 hereditary Peers as regular attenders as against 150 life Peers who attended for more than one-third of the sittings. Incidentally, where are the famous Labour working Peers? I see two of them here this evening. I do not know where the rest of them are. After all, the reform of this House is their idea. I would have thought that more of them would be here to support the thesis of the Government which they themselves support.
The White Paper continues by saying that nearly 40 per cent. of the Members of the House, excluding those without writs of summons and those on leave of absence, were born before 1930. I plead guilty. I hope it is not suggested that to be born before 1930 means that one has become incompetent or gaga. It does mean, however, that in the nature of things one is unlikely to be around for very much longer.
There follows a chapter on second chambers overseas. We have already dealt with this. Reference is made to Canada. As far as I am aware that is not a very good example of a nominated upper House. I do not believe that we should take into account most of our continental neighbours or partners (which is the fashionable term). As my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, France has had 12 constitutions since 1789 and, as far as I can see, is capable of a few more even in what is left of my lifetime. Germany has had three rich and is now a republic; Spain had a bloody civil war not so long ago and has not completely recovered from it; and Italy went from a kingdom to a republic in 1947, since when she has been governed by a process of spectacular corruption. The less said about Greece the better. Therefore, we do not need to look for guidance to any

923
of those countries or to Canada. The USA has also been mentioned. Certainly, it has had a relatively stable constitution interrupted only by the civil war which took place a long time ago. We could look to the US, but the differences between our two countries in size and composition are enormous. Possibly a reformed House on the lines of the US Senate which is elected and representative is about the only alternative to what we have now—and it is a pretty poor one.
At all events, the new House should and, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, must have power to challenge the House of Commons and effectively end the elected dictatorship under which we now live, whichever party is in power. Only such a reform is worth bothering about. I have believed for many years that the only way seriously to achieve this is to make the new House elected.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the hereditary principle. It is widely condemned by all major parties as being unacceptable. That is why I want to talk about it. Our forebears would have been puzzled by this as until the 19th century Europe was almost exclusively governed under the hereditary principle. My noble friend Lord Beloff in a previous debate drew attention to the hereditary nature of the Jewish priesthood and the Jewish polity in general. That has certainly stood the test of time. The late and much-lamented King Hussein of Jordan was descended from the prophet Mohammed and derived his legitimacy from that fact. The Hindu caste system is hereditary and has survived the British raj and the imposition by Congress of a secular state. One may not like it but it is there. Hindus also believe in reincarnation, as do Buddhists—a fact that appears to have escaped most of our press, the football establishment and seemingly Her Majesty's Government.
Most if not all noble Lords care deeply about their children and children's children and hope—dare I say it—that they will do better than other people's children. That is human and natural and has been so throughout history. When we engage in all this grand talk of the hereditary principle being unacceptable let us bear in mind one fact: democracy is new and comparatively untried. We do not know what will come of it over the decades arid centuries to come. The hereditary principle has ruled mankind for the greater part of man's history. Let us not be too ready to dismiss it out of hand.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, at the beginning of the great political adventure of the British aristocracy in its first manifesto there was written:
"To none will we sell, refuse, or delay right or justice."
That sentence, the 40th of the Great Charter, has proved easier to enunciate than to implement, partly because the idea of "right" has changed and grown over the years. But we should still try to ensure that this reform advances the process of promoting rights. Clearly I have at present a right, in a purely legal sense, to be standing here making this speech, but I cannot see any philosophical or moral underpinning of that right or any reason why it should exist. The idea of society which
924
previously underpinned it—a medieval concept—is defunct, and I would find it hard to subscribe to it even if it were not. Stage one of the process envisaged by the White Paper is therefore really just housekeeping, recognising a reality which has long existed. Even at that it is fairly minimal. No reform which leaves untouched the ex officio right of Anglican bishops to sit in the United Kingdom Parliament can possibly be described as radical. In discussing stage one, the White Paper presents a sociological analysis of hereditary Peers and concludes, in summary, that they consist of too many farmers and too few women. I do riot argue with that, but I am not sure how it came to be accepted that Anglican bishops are in terms of occupation, geographical base, background, colour, race or sex an exact microcosm of society at large.
The White Paper points to the value of their perspective and, presumably, advice. I am delighted to accept the advice of bishops or farmers, but I do not think that that is the point. The issue is not whether bishops and farmers can give good advice, but whether they should be allowed to decide for the rest of us on matters like the age of gay consent. The Government's answer is that farmers should not but bishops should and that the anachronistic nature of the latter arrangement should be addressed by appointing some rabbis, mullahs and moderators to your Lordships' House. What is to be done particularly to represent the consciences of those with no religion who are also mentioned in the White Paper is, perhaps understandably, unspecified. This is symptomatic of the central problem. The Government seem far clearer about what they do not want than about what they do; otherwise they would not need a Royal Commission at all. For instance, in the case of Scottish devolution—a more limited but not in principle simpler matter than reform of your Lordships' House—serviceable legislation appeared in a few weeks.
What the Government do not want is a perfectly reasonable thing not to want but it turns out to be no substitute for a complete and positive vision. The alternatives proposed for stage two—appointment by quango, nomination by party, representation of special interests, democracy—are not a cocktail to be mixed according to taste. They are expressions of fundamentally different views about how a nation should be managed. Perhaps I can help by saying something that is too simple for your Lordships' House. The essential rights over legislation belong to the people. The whole process, not just part of it, belongs to the people. It has therefore been in essence stolen from them—from us—and we should have it back. The first Chamber should account to the people and so should the second. Neither accountability replaces the other. That notion, embodied in every tiny American town that elects a sheriff, seems to me to be the only basic and fundamental principle engaged in this entire process. If it is a true principle, which I think it is, its consequences need to be accepted and managed, not fudged.
Many noble Lords have put forward various contrary arguments today. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has put it quite neatly on several occasions, pointing out that he is here because of what he is supposed to have done

925
rather than because of what someone else is supposed to have done. That is true. But the right to legislate for others does not derive from eminence. I should like to be precise here. The right to give advice may very well derive from eminence; it is the right to insist that others take this advice that does not. It is when the eminent pass through the Division Lobby that they appropriate something that is not theirs.
Therefore, first, all parts of the legislature need to account to the electorate. Secondly, there may be a good practical case for power being divided asymmetrically between the two Chambers but this should be done directly by defining the powers of both of them, not indirectly by tinkering with the legitimacy of one of them. My main complaint about the White Paper is that it treats the relationship between branches of the legislature as primary and the rights of the electorate as contingent upon it. This is absolutely the wrong way up and represents a definite deterioration from the sentence I quoted earlier written by that collection of bandits and ecclesiastics 800 years ago. It creates a real danger that we will continue to refuse or delay right or justice to almost everyone.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, it is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and two of her noble friends on the Front Bench. It is difficult to know why we have so few comments from Labour Back-Benchers. Perhaps it is because, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggested, it is a document that the Government never wanted published, or because they are not interested in what happens to this Chamber after the hereditaries have left.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of chapter 5 of the White Paper contain words which set out what this is all about. They state that:
"the present composition of the House of Lords is not defensible",
and that,
"it is … fundamentally wrong that membership should be dominated by people whose presence is literally a birthright".
I go along with that, and most practical Conservatives have done so for 30 years and more.
It is less easy to go along with the suggestion that,
"the first element of reform will he significant and valuable in itself',
or the thought that the illegitimacy of the hereditary peerage is such—we are all so tainted—that we should not have the opportunity to play even an advisory part in Parliament in the birth of a new second Chamber. It is with the words in mind of Mrs. Beckett at the Second Reading of the Bill in another place that I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as Leader of the House, perhaps against her better judgment as Lord Privy Seal, for giving hereditary Peers this opportunity to speak in the debate on questions affecting the future composition, role and functions of this House.
It is said that hereditary Peers must go, and go now. Their protestations that they are ready to go when a replacement is ready to take over are travestied, their good faith impugned. They are asked, "Why now? Why not
926
during the long years of Conservative rule?" It was said by my noble friend Lord Eccles more than 30 years ago in the debate on the 1968 White Paper, on 21st November 1968 at col. 1064 of the Official Report, that:
"I would think it already clear that your Lordships' House has to be reformed by a Labour Government and the trade unions by a Conservative Government".
How very prescient were those words, coming as they did before In Place of Strife, and well before Mrs. Thatcher's trade union reforms of the early 1980s turned round both the country and, ultimately I like to think, the Labour Party.
In the absence of Labour speakers, perhaps I may say a word about the amendment moved by my noble friend. I hope that we shall not have a Division and that, having made his very worthwhile points so cogently, he will be content to withdraw the amendment. It is a small point but it could be a mistake to suggest that this House is not prepared to consider the loss or reduction of its "theoretically available powers", where the loss is balanced, as it could be, by reforms giving a more meaningful and effective role in Parliament than this House has at present. That was indeed accepted in the consensus of 1968.
The White Paper states that a better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers, recognising that they might as a consequence be used more frequently. If one inverts that sentence, one gets what I believe it can mean: that a better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers in order to ensure that they are used more frequently.
My noble friend would have had me more clearly on board had his amendment focused on the tendentious messages about the second stage which chapter 8 of the White Paper sends to the Royal Commission. Given the long and distinguished history of the proposal for a two-writ system which began, I understand, many years ago on a golf course, it is surprising that this system is not offered to the Royal Commission as a fifth model. It is not even set up as an Aunt Sally to be shot down. Yet it is a constitutional innovation which found a wide measure of acceptance in 1968.
If, as the noble Baroness said, there has been a great deal of thought given to reform over many years, with a large existing literature, so that the Royal Commission will have an easy and quick task, why does the menu in chapter 8 of the White Paper exclude the two-writ option? It is the one constitutional reform on which there was general agreement after prolonged consensual discussion 30 years ago.
It is perfectly clear to me that Labour is sending a clear message to the Royal Commission: "You will be wasting your time if you look at any other than one of the four models we have prescribed, and of these we have a mixed Chamber in mind for your preferred choice". Why do I say that? Because the choice is put forward tendentiously in the following form. We have, first, the nominated Chamber, with its advantages and disadvantages. Then we have the elected Chamber, again with its advantages and disadvantages. Finally, it is explained that the mixed Chamber will share the advantages of the nominated

927
Chamber, with the advantages of the elected Chamber, and, hey presto, the choice can be made. What has happened to the disadvantages inherent in each method? The House must draw its own conclusions.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has allowed us to enter into the parliamentary discussion on the shape of the second stage of reform. I should be content, if it were possible, to have an elected House. However, I sense that it is not possible, that there will not he an elected House and that the preamble to the Parliament Act will remain unconsummated. In that case, I hope that the Royal Commission will eschew the mongrel too-good-to-be-true mixed Chamber and plump for a wholly nominated Chamber, coupled with a two-writ system. I make no secret of the fact that I see advantages in the two-writ system quite outside the scope of the White Paper, and those will be discussed in due course.
For the moment, however, I merely mention some of the advantages of the two-writ system. First, it would make it possible for voting Members who found that they could not give time to the business of Parliament to disclaim their voting rights and sit as speaking Members. Secondly, it would also enable speaking Members to be appointed with special expertise. They would not be subject to any obligation, moral or otherwise, to be present to vote at all times and on all manner of subjects.
Thirdly—I hardly dare bring up the subject—paragraph 44 of the 1968 White Paper provided that voting Members would lose their voting rights at the end of the Parliament in which they reached the age of 72. Perhaps I can keep life Peers with me by pointing out that that idea was not directed at removing Members just as they began to approach the height of their powers but at keeping the number of voting Peers at a reasonable level.
Paragraph 46 of the 1968 White Paper suggested that initially a reasonable size (excluding Law Lords and Bishops) would be between 200 and 250 Peers. This assumed that existing hereditary Peers would remain in the House and continue to do much work. Today the comparable figure would have to be larger. It would be interesting to know what the Government consider would be the appropriate figure today. Perhaps the Chief Whip will be able to tell us in due course. In another place Dr. Tony Wright—I understand that last year he was the Lord Chancellor's PPS--said on 15th February that anyone looking at a mature, fully-formed House of Lords would agree that it would contain only about 300 Members. We already have 510 life Peers against Dr. Wright's 300, with apparently floods more still to come, depending upon a certain contingency.
I agree with the comment of my noble friend Lord Lucas about the possible retirement of life Peers. Life it is, and life it should remain. That is the way for an independent House. But retirement seems inevitable. The dilemma can be solved effectively only by a two-writ House, with life Peers becoming speaking Peers at an appropriate moment. I hope that that is a matter that the Royal Commission and the Government will consider seriously.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am always reminded of Psalm 23 when the subject of House of Lords reform is raised. I paraphrase:
"The Lord's my pacemaker—I shall not rush!".
Bearing in mind that any reform of one of the two Houses of legislation should comply with the elected government's wish for such changes to be radical, the changes must also be simple, fair to all political parties and equally fair and understood by the electorate, no matter their colour, class, creed or political persuasion.
Parliament has always been both a court and a legislature. It is constitutionally important to retain the High Court of Parliament. On important constitutional points, it is vital that the House of Lords retains the right to sit as a whole House, "calling the House", not only in Committee. Peers are perfectly capable of acting judicially. Sometimes they have a better understanding than the professional members of the Appellate Committee. We do not need an American-style Supreme Court, or, God forbid, a British version of the discredited European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The House of Lords has legitimacy, whereas a new court would not. One has only to look at the European Court of Justice, many of whose judgments do not command respect and which is widely seen as a political court.
When sitting as a whole House—for example, on the trial of Lord de Clifford in 1936—the Members are under a duty to act judicially. I believe that there are few instances when the whole House has sat in judgment of a Member behaving other than judicially. An example is the Ashby v. White in 1703 when 76 Peers passed judgment on electoral rights.
The power of the House to vote as a whole House remains unaffected, save that by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 at least three of the Law Lords, the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Peers who have held high judicial office—for example, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning, Lord Ackner, Lord Lane and Lord Donaldson—must he present.
As stated in the Government's White Paper on House of Lords reform, no party should have a majority voting power, save for a group known as Cross Benchers; a group not subservient to a partisan whip and most easily identified by the country as a whole as "independent of party political pressure". The Law Lords should be included in the Cross Bench group.
A suggested number of voting Peers might be: Labour, 50; Conservative, 50; Liberal Democrats, 50; and Cross Benchers, 75. That would be a total of 225, or 17 per cent. of the total life and hereditary Peers presently permitted to vote and speak. Each of the groups represented by "voting Peers" would request from their ranks, both life and hereditary, the names of those who would be willing to stand for selection and be prepared to sit in the House of Lords for three out of the four weekly working days. "Self selection" is a system whereby the Peers within each group/party would cast votes for Peers within their group/party and thus select, through preference, the required number for their group/party.

929
Although this system may be contrary to that suggested in the White Paper of January 1999, it would avoid, first, the House of Lords being a Chamber elected by people and so in competition with the House of Commons which is elected by the same voters. Secondly, the self-selection principle would avoid further imposition and intrusion into the electorate's private time—media and television, lobbying, personal visits by potential voting Peers—which is a situation certain to arise if the White Paper's preference for "people's Peers", or regionally selected Peers, was to be adopted. An overdose of political rhetoric will encourage further disinterest and apathy from the public who are becoming increasingly removed from politics and politicians, whether national, European or local.
The self selection of voting Peers would occur on a quinquennial basis, as stated in the 1715 Act, or, should a voting Peer die or retire from politics, similar to a reselection or by-election for the House of Commons. I suggest that should the House of Commons force a government to resign, or should a general election be called before the completion of a five-year government period, the nominated voting Peers within the House of Lords who would be considered for selection every five years would not be affected. No Peers should be permitted to hold the rank of voting Peer for more than 10 years; in other words, the full lifespan of two government periods.
Again, contrary to the suggestion in the White Paper 1999, both hereditary and life Peers should be permitted to put their names forward for selection as representative voting Peers for their appropriate group/party. Such a move avoids the unnecessary and obviously false suggestion that hereditary Peers should be appointed life Peers if they are to work as voting Peers within the House of Lords.
All Peers should be permitted to speak within the House of Lords, as that would provide the broadest, most diverse opinions for consideration by the voting Peers—the jury within the House of Lords—and it would avoid any question of age restriction. The religious, cultural representation within the House of Lords could be sensibly broadened by sage appointments made by the unbiased selection committee suggested in the White Paper; the committee considering life peerage appointments.
Surely it would be financially beneficial and ensure job security for so many of the staff if all Peers be permitted to use the House of Lords facilities. That point was raised in the White Paper. The facilities are of educational and historical benefit to the many parties from abroad as well as from the United Kingdom; parties introduced to the Houses of Parliament by both life and hereditary Peers.
By retaining much of the present system within the legislature of the House of Lords the cost of an elected Chamber would not be incurred. The second Chamber would continue to act as a second outlet for public opinion and alleviate the increasing pressure applied to elected Members of Parliament by an increasingly aware and demanding public. The second Chamber, as
930
presently composed, would prevent a presidential as opposed to a parliamentary opinion from directing or dictating to the electorate.
The House of Lords would continue to be composed of talented, by degree, life and hereditary Peers who would act as ambassadors for Great Britain and who would listen to and be heard by those involved in all walks of life, both nationally and internationally. The House of Lords would respect its responsibilities to the monarchy and to the people whose interests its Members represent and in whose areas they reside.
Contrary to what was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the "Today" programme on 14th October last year, the House of Lords will never believe that it has the same legislative power and is on a par with the elected Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Parliament is not a one man band; it is a trio of the Monarch, the Commons and the Lords.
A Parliament Act 2000 should be introduced realising the 1911 Act and revising the delegated 1949 secondary legislation Act; so complying with the principle of modernisation espoused by the present Government—and I thank all the Peers who responded to my circular on the validity of the so-called 1949 Act, arguably secondary legislation. Such a revisory move is further prompted by devolutionary moves within the United Kingdom and by Parliament's increasing involvement in European Union legislation, and in the councils and committees of the European Parliament, initiating such legislation as devolution and federalisation.
Partisan differences and dislikes of privileges should not influence our considerations. We are not rewarded for the goodness of our intentions, but for the usefulness of the result.
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate. In November 1968 a number of today's speakers took part in the previous White Paper debate on House of Lords reform. Given that it is sometimes alleged that this House is an undemocratic assembly, it may seem paradoxical that your Lordships gave such solid support to that White Paper, while in the following year the Bill was caused to fail by groupings and members of both the main parties in the other place. Yet it is clear that none of the blame lies here for the failure of the Labour Government's Lords reform Bill of 1969. Your Lordships were determined to make the Bill work, and in this place there was cross-party agreement in relation to its main provisions.
Conversely, since the current White Paper has not been able to emanate from all-party talks, it may not be too surprising that, unlike its predecessor, it has not managed to win a great deal of confidence. However, as your Lordships have made plain today, the resolve in this Chamber to help to devise sound legislation for Lords reform is just as firm now as it was 30 years ago.
This debate, today and tomorrow, can certainly encourage common purpose among us. That is so not least because its focus is far more the essential question of what a revised second Chamber can and should do, rather than only the narrower issue of who its Members

931
will be—for there can be no doubt that however much the two questions may be interrelated, that of quality of function is paramount, whereas that of composition and membership is secondary.
This leads to the central point of how the functions of a reformed second Chamber can further improve our parliamentary democracy. As regards the second Chamber's role to scrutinise legislation, clearly a key aspect, as has been said, is how voting rights are reformed. In the current White Paper, the Government indicate that they seek only broad parity with the Conservatives. Many of us will consider that this is a good approach. It can enable the opposition parties and the Cross-Benchers to unite when necessary to defeat the Government. In terms of something better, it would assist the relationship between the two Houses and enable the other place to be more prepared to heed the advice of this House. That is simply because it could no longer be complained that Lords advice, excellent though it was, had come from an undemocratic Chamber with an in-built majority of Conservative voting rights.
I turn now to the present White Paper's reference to this Chamber's deliberative function and its recognition of the quality of contribution. If such comes through questions and debates, not least is it also evidenced by the highly regarded Lords European Select Committee reports and by the work of Lords delegations overseas, including the Council of Europe, where I have had the honour to serve for seven years, retiring last month.
The question is what arrangements should be made as part of Lords reform to preserve and enhance the quality and effect of the deliberative function of this House. As my noble friend Lord Coleraine has just mentioned, the 1968 White Paper addressed that question by recommending a two-tier House with voting and non-voting Members. Clear advantages arise from this expedient. First, in the immediate future and in the short tern there is no threat of discontinuity to present high standards and independent-mindedness. That is because existing Peers would retain speaking and committee rights, although not necessarily voting rights.
On the other hand and secondly, since voting and non-voting Members who were Peers by succession would not be replaced when they died by their heirs but by nominated life Peers, it allowed a decision to be taken on the hereditary principle. This was to end the automatic right to sit and vote by succession.
Therefore, the formula provided within the 1968 White Paper is a constructive one. That is because the two-tier system provides continuity of independence and expertise. It addresses successfully the two main grievances, which have always been the in-built Conservative majority and the hereditary principle. As a result, it assists the working relationship between this House and another place and hence, also, it improves the scope for Parliament as a whole to influence the Executive.
We may be fortunate in this country with our system of holding government accountable to Parliament. However, Parliament should have more influence over the Executive than it does and Lords reform is a very good opportunity to achieve that.
932
In handling this year's Lords reform Bill, clearly we should not pre-empt its conclusions by acting to legislate before the commission has had time to report. Instead, in this House we should now build up consensus among ourselves. And in the wider interest we should be prepared to embrace the wise measures of the Labour government's 1968 White Paper.
8.44 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, during the debate last autumn on the future of your Lordships' House, I was struck by the blueprint for a reformed House that one noble Lord proposed in which all Peers would be forcibly retired on reaching 75 years of age. That suggestion was made with a commendable display of selflessness in view of the fact that the noble Lord in question was not only a life Peer but, by his own admission, 77 years old. I am happy to say that the noble Lord has not followed his own recipe, thereby depriving your Lordships of the benefits of his wise counsel.
As is well known, the original meaning of the word senatus is an assembly of old men. In ancient Rome, age was held in great respect, as it was in China and in most ancient civilisations as well, as it was formerly in our own.
Recently in the West, with the increasing demands of today's world and the race for the new, the vigour of youth has come to assume a paramount importance, particularly in the case of those in public life. That is doubtless logical where the demands of a constituency must be combined with performing in another place. However, such is not the case in your Lordships House. Here, time is available for reflection and indeed, one could argue that reflection and mature consideration are of the essence.
The strength of youth is not an advantage here and although age does not, sadly, automatically confer wisdom, neither does youth. In fact, although there may be no fool like an old fool, yet, as Lord Chatham observed:
"Youth is the season of credulity".
I fall somewhere in the middle stage—very late middle, unfortunately—between youth and age. I can therefore claim to speak without interest in making the following modest suggestion for the reform of the Chamber which is being foisted on us in such haste. I suggest that in it, in addition to the 91 hereditary Peers who may be suffered to remain, all those hereditary Peers who are over 75 and who are regular attenders of your Lordships' House should retain their rights to sit. Quite aside from the contribution that they offer with their long experience and the wisdom they frequently bring to debate, they will confer a dignity on the revised Chamber and will provide a note of continuity which will soften the effect of the "big bang" approach which the Government seem hell-bent on effecting. Moreover, their continued presence will make more gradual the inevitable change to the familiar landscape here.
There is in Venice a famous portrait by Giorgione of an old and haggard woman looking steadily out at the viewer and pointing to herself. Attached to her is a little scroll on which is written the chilling motto "Col Tempo—with

933
time. Perhaps the Government, many of whom are in the flush of early middle age, if not youth, should reflect on the implications of that painting as they consider the future of your Lordships' House.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, there are matters beyond Westminster for your Lordships to debate, to question and to legislate. She did not spell out those words exactly as I have done but I hope that that is a fair interpretation of what she said. I wholly agree with her and intend to concentrate on that aspect and leave entirely to others the question of the future make-up of this House. I hope to make a few useful comments designed to protect and safeguard what is good and what we do well already.
Therefore, I go straight to the White Paper itself. When I first read it, like all your Lordships, I perused the contents page and homed straight in upon Chapter 4, "The role of a second chamber". I felt that that chapter would give me a lead and provide me with the basis necessary for debate. Sadly, I was extremely disappointed because there is little on which one can cut one's teeth. Paragraphs 5 to 9 on pages 23 and 24, under the heading of "A representative function", contain some wide platitudes and, with respect, I cannot say that they add up to very much.
Paragraph 10, which relates to what the second Chamber should do, is largely innocuous. It outlines only cursorily the functions which a second Chamber should have. Up to now we have had a House of Peers with both a large and small "p"; surely that situation must continue. In all the years I have been here, my experience has been that there is no difference between life and hereditary Peers. Most Back-Bench Peers intervene on subjects on which they have been briefed or about which they have knowledge already, but, in the main, debate has been non-political except on certain notorious occasions. Front-Benchers cannot be expected to cover all intrinsic points of legislation; there are always other issues which it is important to debate.
I do not suggest that only hereditary Peers raise these intrinsic points; of course they do not. But this House is going to undergo major surgery in which its balance may well be altered, possibly to the House's detriment. That is why the Government should lay down certain guidelines for the balance to be maintained. I shall be grateful if the Chief Whip, when winding-up tomorrow, can give the House an assurance that the balance will be maintained—he will probably put it much more eloquently in his own words.
I feel that the commission has an impossible task in being asked to report so soon—Christmas is only 10 months away. And I am afraid I must politely disagree with the noble Baroness that there is little research to be done as compared with other Bills; I should have thought the reverse. For instance, does the commission intend to circulate a questionnaire, which I believe it should do, to all institutions—professional, trade and otherwise and certain societies which over the
934
years have found time to lobby (that may be too strong a word) or put their points to Parliament—asking them what they expect Parliament to do and to summarise what they expect a second Chamber to do? I should have thought that that was much more important than the future make-up of this House.
Over the years there have been many occasions when I have tabled amendments—sometimes probing and sometimes pressing—mainly on my own subjects. But perhaps I may be anecdotal for a moment. On another occasion the noble Baroness criticised the balance on one side or another. But during the Second Reading of the Wages Bill I felt that I had to raise a matter relating to transport. In fact the matter had been dealt with in the other place on Third Reading so I asked my Chief Whip at the time whether it was still necessary for me to speak just to say thank you. He said, "As there are very few speakers on our side, you will speak for 10 minutes on this Bill and then say thank you". That needed an awful lot of swotting. During that 10 minutes I said that I would be available to take up points in the remaining stages of the Bill. I received a letter from a trade union requesting me to table an amendment. I did and was pleased to do so. It was later fully debated.
Finally, whatever happens I wish this House well and urge this Government and successive governments to insist that this House conducts itself in a dignified and unpompous manner and with humour, as it does already; that it continues relentlessly to scrutinise legislation in the way the country, if not the world, admires; and that this Front Bench, like the Front Bench opposite, conducts itself well. I am not toadying or being sycophantic, but I pray that that continues.
A small but important point worth mentioning for instruction is that noble Lords inform the Ministers who have to answer as to the points they intend to raise. That will ensure that the best answers are given, as they are now. Also, in the new parliamentary Session without the hereditaries, I ask that a card be put in the window of the Peers' Entrance on the front door and the Peers' Lobby on the back door explaining that there have been changes but that it will be "business as usual".
8.54 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, at this stage of the debate there is. a duty to be brief. The White Paper tells us that the Government will renew the House of Lords as a modern, effective second Chamber of Parliament, fit for the 21st century. The Royal Commission will recommend how to make it effective. As to composition, suggestions are made for recruitment to an appointed House—self-nomination—and I am glad to say that the White Paper suggests that there should be people's Peers.
Various forms of franchise are suggested for an elected House, and there may be a mixture of both. So effectiveness is to be achieved by greater legitimacy as to composition. But the White Paper shies away from the natural progression whereby a legitimate Chamber will wish to take upon itself enhanced powers. The general theme in the powers section is that they should be curtailed; hence my noble friend's amendment,

935
which I support. It is significant that in chapter 7, paragraph 25, it suggests reducing powers which remain after the last Parliament Act by institutionalising the understandings under which the present House of Lords operates. Those we know as the Salisbury Rules.
Failure by Parliament to agree about powers of a second Chamber has scuppered all attempts this century to achieve reform. Is it realistic to suppose that the proposed joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, with in front of it recommendations after a few months of deliberation by the Royal Commission, will do any better? There could well be, once again, deadlock, so that an emasculated illegitimate second Chamber will carry on indefinitely, posing no threat to a crusading, modernising New Labour.
That may well be what the Government want and the White Paper is a gesture only. If I am right, it is a very great pity. I believe strongly in the need for reform, but we have to get the new composition of powers sorted out. 1 cannot see this being done by a Royal Commission with a lifespan up to the end of this year—only 10 months. For a careful and considered reform, in the words of the White Paper, this process must have more time. Meanwhile, there will be an illegitimate interim Chamber that can be no more effective than the present one, which has the probability of an extended shelf-life.
There is a case—in part acknowledged by the suggested Cross-Bench amendment and the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine—for an interim Chamber composed as now but which has divested itself of surplus passengers. Such a culling should be fairly drastic and in my view it would not be difficult. But I fear that that will not happen.
I wish I were young enough to see a really effective reformed House of Lords. However, I do not see that being achieved by these proposals. But perhaps that is the intention.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for rather grudgingly giving us the opportunity to debate the White Paper, more importantly because I was out of the country in October last and was unable to participate in the two-day debate at that time.
As a hereditary Peer I stress from the first that I am not against reform of your Lordships' House in principle. indeed, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that its powers should not be reduced. But, like many other noble Lords who have spoken today and on other occasions, I am totally opposed to the two-stage approach adopted by the Government. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is a case of action first, thought later.
I say now, therefore, that I shall oppose the Bill on hereditary representation when it reaches this House, and I do not think that the so-called "Weatherill amendment" makes any difference to the fundamental
936
question. I fail to see why consideration of the representation of hereditary Peers in this House should not be part of the remit of the Royal Commission.
If we were starting from scratch in a modern society, clearly, we would not select members of a second Chamber on the basis of heredity. However, we are not starting from scratch; we are dealing with an institution that has 700 years of history and tradition. This is not a trivial statement. The traditions of this House and its history are part of the mystique of this country and of our proud island race, and are admired throughout the world.
As a first generation hereditary Peer, I am proud and honoured to be able to represent my father's name in your Lordships' House. I am sure that a tradition of service is deeply ingrained in all of the hereditary Peers sitting here today, as it is, I am also sure. among the life Peers here assembled. It is not easy to argue in favour of heredity, but I believe that the record of this House speaks for itself, as many noble Lords have stated. The unique tradition of your Lordships' House is important and should not be discarded lightly.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the relationship between the current and the reformed House of Lords with the House of Commons. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out, in this House we have another important and historical relationship; that is, with the Monarch. Each one of us, at the beginning of this Parliament, or on introduction, has sworn an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to her heirs and successors. In so doing, we have all explicitly acknowledged the hereditary principle as it applies to the monarchy.
I have been involved in numerous conversations with people in many walks of life in recent months—as I am sure have many other noble Lords—on the subject of reform of your Lordships' House and of the abolition of the rights of hereditary Peers in particular. I have found pretty general support for reform but considerable concern as to the wisdom of doing away with the hereditary principle in toto. Many people have suggested to me that doing away with the hereditary Peers in the House of Lords is one step on the road towards doing away with an hereditary monarchy.
I know that the proposals before us were set out in general terms in the Government's election manifesto, and that reference was made by Her Majesty in the gracious Speech to the proposed ending of the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. What I do not know is whether that is a proposal that the Sovereign personally supports or whether she feels it to be something that she has no choice but to accept.
I believe that a common sense appraisal of the current proposals is, indeed, that they do represent a long-term threat to the hereditary principle of the monarchy. We are talking about a major constitutional change. It behaves all Peers, and hereditary Peers in particular., as guardians of the constitution, to consider carefully the wording of their Writ of Summons and decide what counsel they should give on this particular "arduous and urgent affair" concerning the Sovereign and the State.

937
I welcome many of the suggestions for reform of this House contained in the White Paper. I would not support a fully-elected second Chamber. I believe the presence in this House of leading experts and practitioners from all walks of life is of inestimable value to this House, Parliament and the country.
I am not opposed, in principle, to any reform of hereditary representation in this House. I well understand the Government's impatience with the in-built majority against them and with the Conservative Party's frequent abuse of this situation over the years. In fact, I believe that hereditary Peers should preserve their independence and should not take a party Whip at all, unless, of course, they have a Front Bench appointment.
There have been many suggestions as to how hereditary representation could be reformed without completely destroying seven centuries of tradition. Many of them I would find acceptable in principle. One suggestion that appeals to me in the reformed House is that each county council and metropolitan borough should appoint, say, two representatives for fixed terms to the reformed second Chamber, at least one of whom should be an hereditary Peer. That would guarantee regional representation and confer a degree of democratic legitimacy on those appointed.
Another suggestion, and one that preserves tradition, is that hereditary Peers might be entitled to sit in the reformed House for, say, two parliamentary Sessions following their succession. That would have the advantage of preserving the representation of youth in your Lordships' House and would enable the House to get to know new incumbents and vice versa. However, those are matters that should rightfully be considered by the Royal Commission, not ruled out of court in advance.
The only glimmer of hope I can see is that the terms of reference, as set out in the White Paper, do not appear to me to exclude consideration by the commission of continued representation by hereditary Peers in the reformed House. It is a happy but, I suppose, Alice-in-Wonderland idea, that, having been abolished by the current Bill, we might rise again via the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I shall not speculate as to why so many Scottish hereditary Peers have been squashed into the last quarter of today's list. I hope that it is not racist.
Prioritising the expulsion of hereditary Peers made good manifesto copy and set the scene for knockabout politicking of the type beloved of the media. A matter of such overwhelming constitutional significance as reform of this House demanded a measured and balanced approach, not one signposted by party ideology. Belief that the underlying reason for isolating the ejection of hereditary Peers was to avoid having us discuss the future House was confirmed by the Leader of the Commons when she spoke on 1st February. However, with the White Paper and the Royal
938
Commission extracted from the Government, the scenario has changed. We can debate the White Paper and talk to the Royal Commission, and, although today technically we cannot discuss the Bill to remove ourselves, we can refer to it.
Whether by design or accident, the Government seem to have got themselves into a complicated, haphazard mess. Perhaps it is not too late for the script to be rewritten. There is still time.
The White Paper is perhaps more notable for what it does not say than for what it does. Perhaps I may first address the nature of a reformed House. What needs to be decided first and foremost are size, purpose, functions and powers. Not until those fundamentals are settled can composition and membership be sensibly discussed. The order in which the terms of reference for the Royal Commission are set out tends to support that view, and yet the Government have bedevilled the issue and compromised debate by focusing attention first on composition, through their insistence on first eliminating hereditary Peers and necessitating a transitional House.
I can see no good reason why the powers of a reformed House should not mirror those that we now have. Such an arrangement would protect the position of another place. It is us wicked hereditary Peers who are the fly in New Labour's ointment, not the historically evolved relative competences of the two Chambers. The machine works—no matter what selective statistics or partisan points are advanced.
The White Paper ignores the problems of imbalance between Executive and legislature which are currently so obvious. I am certain that that needs re-ordering, which means that the powers of neither House should be reduced. That is why I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendment.
The prospect of relative powers being debated by a Joint Committee is troubling, to say the least. One might—or must—hope that the Royal Commission will take a firm stand on the broad status quo as a proper way forward. I have no pronounced views on size or functions, which in any case are subject to evolutionary change.
Moving from powers and companion matters, I come to membership. I advocate that the majority of Members should be elected, with only a very few places reserved for ex-officio Members over and above the inclusion of judges and Bishops. An elected House, when powers were settled, would be no threat to Commons' supremacy.
I would prefer to see election by popular ballot from regions of equal size, promoting balance between heavily and sparsely populated areas and, I hope, an electoral scheme which would secure the return of at least one independent Member and one candidate for each main political party for each region. I do not like the option of a purely nominated House. In fact, I find it almost objectionable. It would lack the teeth of popular mandate. It would be in danger of becoming a giant quango and then a very expensive talking shop, unlikely over time to attract the right calibre of Member.

939
I hope that the Royal Commission will reject election by colleges of regional worthies, which would create a House of delegates, not Parliamentarians. What we need is a proper parliamentary Chamber.
Would that a transitional House could be avoided. Other speakers have talked about the difficulties of achieving the parity which is looked for, and one worries seriously about how long it would be transitional. The manifesto uses the words "over time" when talking about parity, while the White Paper talks about "moving towards". Both those phrases suggest potential delays.
Inserting a reformed Chamber into an existing parliamentary system is more difficult than creating a new parliament or assembly. With devolution, regionalisation, changing relations with Europe and potential electoral reform, strands are being yanked from our constitutional fabric at an alarming rate. The possible consequences for our parliamentary democracy are frightening if we do not get it right. Such a dramatically important issue can provoke passionate reactions. The Government may face real difficulties with your Lordships' House. I. for one, will not be influenced by the possible offer of the 91 hereditary Peers being included in the next stage. For the sake of our nation and our parliamentary democracy, I can only pray that we do get it right.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, at the beginning of our deliberations this afternoon, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House taunted these Benches—twicewith inferences that our numbers in the debate, the hours set aside, compared unfavourably to the weight that we gave to health and the homeless. Over the years I have become totally exasperated at this assumption that only a Labour administration, only socialism, can claim ownership of compassion. It may be difficult for an on-message New Labour apostle to take in, but the heart of a Tory. hereditary Peer can break just as readily when faced with the reality of destitution, alienation, misery and disease. Indeed, I think because my instincts are for the individual rather than the statistic that the pain may be even more immediate.
This little polemic springs from one sentence in the White Paper which appears in proposal No. 16 of Chapter 2. We read:
"The presence in the House of this large number of hereditary peers constitutes an element of the Lords which is unresponsive to political and social change".
But what are the grounds for this offensive claim? Of course, I am aware of the public perception of the Members, particularly the hereditary Members. We are perceived as senile, obstructive, reactionary retards, a mad assembly of Dornford Yates inbred simpletons. I sometimes feel sorry for life Peers, who are immediately pigeonholed by the tabloid cartoonists along with the HMS "Pinafore" caricatures embedded in the British psyche. What we have around us here is a tapestry which has been 700 years in the weaving. Our reality is a unique cultural institution, a mixture of rewarded loyalties, achievements well recognised and a word curiously absent from the White Paper—duty.
940
Perhaps I may at this late hour set a little test to the writers of the White Paper: why do those hereditary Peers, who have included the work of the House in their lives, do it? Is it for the money? I hope that this is not seriously mooted. Is it for the glory? Oh, come on! Is it for power? Well, we all know that it is not, not with the balance between the Houses set in statute as at present. Is it because of a love of Parliament? Yes, now we are getting closer. Is it because of a perception of duty? I believe it is just that. But I believe more. We are witnessing real change in the British political system. What is being sold to us is packaged in the "good", the "how-can-you-possibly-argue-with-that?" words, "modern", "evolving", and--I nearly forgot—"new". So this White Paper is presented to us as a necessary first step in the evolution of a modern, new political order.
I am afraid I have a different word. What we are seeing is not evolution but mutation—mutating with all the overtones of unknowable outcome. Under the cloak of synthetic outrage, and helped by a media agenda which would do justice to attention deficit disorder, we are being sold the circumvention of Parliament itself. If my commiseration might be for the petulant mangling of this House, it must spread to the prospects for the other place as well—the other place ambling good naturedly into uncharted, anti-libertarian territories. Power is slipping away from both Houses.
Perhaps the hanging banners of our island history are faded and threadbare. Perhaps ideas of duty and continuity have no pungency for the regimes which lie ahead in our new, modernised politics. Perhaps we have moved into a world of Rice Krispie politics, transient, air-filled, brilliantly advertised. Perhaps this is 'what we deserve and, although it hurts to say it, I cannot absolve my own party, in its recent past, from responsibility for the process. We brought it upon ourselves.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton: My Lords, on 6th February 299 the Clinton Barony was created and John De Clinton of Maxstoke was summoned to Parliament by writ, so creating the title.
It is a privilege for me as the 22nd holder of this title to sit in your Lordships' House. I have to say that I have been a backwoodsman over many years and can remember such remarks as "At this late hour" which usually meant well before midnight. Although I have sat up to well after that hour and into the morning, I shall make sure that that does not happen this evening.
We have seen changes in procedure in your Lordships' House as well as a new and more lively House. It is a different place to when I came here. However, the changes have been gradual and I believe well thought out. The proposals for the future appear to me to be as if we were a ship with no engine, sail or rudder, lost in a rather large ocean. I do not like that, and when discussing it with others outside the House they find it difficult to see the future in spite of the formation of the Royal Commission. I try to answer and say that there must be change, etc., etc.
Then I say to myself—and perhaps this is the only reason for getting on my feet this evening as one of the older titles—that there should be a place in your

941
Lordships' House for hereditary Members and the hereditary system which has served this House so well for so many generations. The hereditary Peers are to me the real guardians of our constitution and monarchy and I believe that we need them more than ever at this time. They should still remain. I know that idea is unpopular, but surely with a smaller number they could be elected among themselves to include all parties, men and women picked for their abilities as a college of working hereditary Peers on a permanent basis.
So many of your Lordships have in this long and important debate placed many ideas and points of view before your Lordships' House and I have followed them with great interest. But, in conclusion, I feel it is my duty as the present holder of this title to have stated my view, if only as a duty towards those of my Clinton ancestors who have been Members of your Lordships' House since 1299.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is late and I shall attempt to be brief. It is not my job on this occasion to wind up—that is a job which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will do from these Benches with great skill tomorrow.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Where is he?
Lord Henley: My Lords, he is here behind me. I apologise to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I am probably obscuring him.
It will be his job to wind up on behalf of these Benches a debate in which, by then, we shall have heard from some 98 speakers. It will the job of my opposite number, the Government Chief Whip, to wind up on behalf of the Government.
My job this evening is to put the House to bed. That will be formally done by the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, but it seems rather extraordinary that, in putting the House to bed, so many noble Lords opposite already seem to have put themselves to bed. There were many occasions when we were in government when I rose to speak at this time of night and suddenly saw a massive influx on to the Benches opposite. On those occasions—at Committee stage or whatever of various Bills—I seem to remember that I went down to defeat, after defeat, after defeat. Noble Lords opposite, or at least the few noble Lords opposite who happen to be here, should remember that, even with the so-called massive majority that we enjoyed, it was very easy, and happened with great regularity, for Conservative governments to be defeated in this House.
I do not want to go through all those who have spoken this evening. We have had many excellent speeches from my noble friends and from noble Lords on the Cross Benches. We have even had one from a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches and one from the Government Back Benches, which I heard. I greatly enjoyed those from my noble friends Lord Denham and Lady Young and from my noble friend Lord Jopling and my noble kinsman Lord Eden. I could go through the
942
whole list of my noble friends and stress how well they have spoken. All I can say is that it has been difficult to put them in the appropriate order—one of the few pieces of patronage that the Opposition Chief Whip has. I am grateful to them all for being so tolerant and for bearing with me and accepting where I put them on the list.
We have another day of debate tomorrow. We shall listen to my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, two former Leaders of the House, opening the debate. There will be further former Leaders and further distinguished speakers from the Privy Council Benches and other parts of the House.
I start by referring to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He and I have been involved with many Bills together when I was in government and he was in opposition. We are friends outside this Chamber and we get on very well. I and many others on these Benches were grateful for the remarks that he made about the part that hereditary Peers have played in the proceedings of this House over the years. We are grateful that he took the trouble to stress that we have played a major part and that many of us have contributed a great deal to this House. It was encouraging to hear remarks of that kind from the Benches opposite.
They were so unlike the remarks that we heard, for example, from the Leader of another place in the debate there. I recommend to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, might be more appropriate as we come to the end of hereditary peerages in this House—should the Bill, when we come to it, ever get through—than what amounts to more or less the open class warfare that we heard from some others in another place.
As I have implied, it is sad that so few of his noble friends spoke in the debate. I understand that there will be a few more tomorrow. I also understand that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the fact that a number of noble Lords opposite—the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Haskel, and others—withdrew their names from the list of speakers over the weekend. When my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made those points, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—who is not in his place—intervened. He said that, speaking with the years of experience that he felt he had as a Chief Whip, he recognised, as he put it, what had happened. He seemed to imply that some sort of Chief Whip's operation had been put into place by myself. I can give a categoric assurance, as was made clear by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe who spoke earlier today, that no such operation took place. At no point did I make any effort to encourage speakers individually to speak.
The list, like Topsy, simply grew, and it grew because there is a great deal of interest not so much in the future of ourselves—those of us who speak as hereditary Peers—but in the future of the House. This debate has not been a continuous whine or whinge simply for preserving the rights of hereditary Peers. Obviously some noble Lords are concerned about the rights of hereditary Peers, but what we have heard is a statement of the facts from many speakers who are concerned to

943
see that when this independent House goes it is replaced by something as good as, or better than, what they leave behind.
The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be aware that this has been what I described as a thoughtful debate. I think that I should not use the past tense on this occasion as we are scarcely half-way through the debate. The list of speakers has been very impressive. Among those who have spoken, or are about to speak, there will be some 18 former Cabinet Ministers and some 25 Privy Counsellors and two Bishops. Yet from the Government Back Benches—I do not know whether it is due to pressure and I do not make such an allegation against the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip—we have so far heard one noble Lord and we are due to hear four more. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have heard just one speaker.
In opening the debate the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal implied that we have been wasting time on this matter in previous debates and are doing so in this debate, time that could have been better spent on what she considers to be the Government's priorities. She mentioned the Health Bill and the problems of the homeless. It was the Prime Minister himself who earlier this year said that the priorities of this Government are health, education and welfare. I, and I imagine many of my noble friends on these Benches, could not agree more. But perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness and the House that it is the Government, and the Government alone, who have caused this problem and it is the Government who have wasted the time.
It was only in October, some 18 months after the election, that the Government agreed to a Royal Commission. It was only this month that the chairman of the commission, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, was appointed and the other members of the commission were appointed following his appointment. As we heard from my noble friend, the commission will not now be able to meet until 1st March and it is now expected to have to report by the end of the year. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, when he comes to answer, how it will be able to respond by the end of the year, bearing in mind that, of all the other Royal Commissions that have reported, very few have been able to report in the amount of time that has been allocated.
944
If the Royal Commission had been appointed back in the summer of 1997 when the present Government came to office, as my noble friend Lord Jopling suggested, it would have been able to report by now. We could now be watching another place debating not the measure it is debating but the substantive Bill itself. I have to say, therefore, that it is the Government who have been wasting time by bringing forward this White Paper as late as they have and by bringing forward a Bill which, by their own admission, is a mere temporary measure.
The Government say that there are pressing priorities. We have heard from the Prime Minister that the pressing priorities are health, education and welfare. But they have brought forward a measure which, even on their own claims, could be superseded during the lifetime of this Parliament. I put it to the House that if anyone is wasting time it is the Government.
Tomorrow we shall continue this debate on the White Paper and, as important, the debate on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It is important to remind ourselves that the House is debating the future powers and functions of this House. What we are not debating at this stage is the Bill itself, which--sadly, and wrongly—looks forward only to the composition of this House. We shall have more to say about composition when we debate the Bill. I put it as a warning to the noble Lord the Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we shall look forward to considerable time at Second Reading and at later stages of the Bill to debate that adequately,
In the meantime, we look forward to further debate on the lines I have mentioned: on the functions and powers of the House as it is to be reconstituted following the Royal Commission. On another occasion, I, like others, look forward to debating the composition of the House. But sadly, it is the Government who insist that we should debate the composition at this stage. And it is the Government who are wasting our time.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the debate until tomorrow, perhaps I may, on behalf of the usual channels, thank your Lordships for adhering to the suggested time limit. It has enabled us to finish at more or less exactly the target time. I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.

  Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  General Anaesthesia in General Dental Practice
  General Anaesthesia in General Dental Practice
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases
  Immigration Act Detainee Numbers
  Immigration Act Detainee Numbers
  Quantum Project: Costs
  Quantum Project: Costs
  Civil and Political Rights: Review
  Civil and Political Rights: Review
  Country Strategy Papers
  Country Strategy Papers
  Kosovo: Aid Disbursements
  Kosovo: Aid Disbursements
  Bilateral Aid Allocations
  Bilateral Aid Allocations
  Management Information System: Evaluation
  Management Information System: Evaluation
  Digital Battlefield Initiative
  Digital Battlefield Initiative
  Russia: Year 2000 Defence Issues
  Russia: Year 2000 Defence Issues
  Land Command Order of Battle
  Land Command Order of Battle
  Peers' Attendance: Analysis
  Peers' Attendance: Analysis
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster
  Disused Railway Lines: Protection of Public
  Disused Railway Lines: Protection of Public
  Synthetic Pyrethroid Sheepdips: Pollution of Watercourses
  Synthetic Pyrethroid Sheepdips: Pollution of Watercourses
  British Railways Board Land Holdings
  British Railways Board Land Holdings
  Deaths in Alcohol-related Road Accidents
  Deaths in Alcohol-related Road Accidents